Liberal Forum

peepee » 28 Aug 2018 7:07 am » wrote:

indago » 27 Aug 2018 1:18 pm » wrote:Like your posts...

...[this ^^ republicrat idiot hasn't much to offer...never will..]

POSTED

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international moneylenders ... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and ... manipulates the credit of the United States" (attributed to barry goldwater)

[psssst, republicrats, barry was referring to you and your fellow monetary ignoramuses]

...the unders took the last p dildy vomit comment over/under...new over/under: 9 hours...

...bill still describes some important hi$tory below...many republicrat rube$ are facile with all sorts of history: ...60's rock bands, playboy centerfolds, super bowl champions, beverly hillbillies episodes, etc. ad goddamned nauseam...unfortunately the important a$pect$ of hi$tory are foreign to the republicrat... gee, i wonder why?...

"...The Federal Reserve Act was railroaded through a carefully prepared Congressional Conference Committee scheduled during unlikely hours of 1:30 a.m. to 4:30 a Monday, December 22, 1913, when most members were sleeping, at which 20-40 substantial differences in the House and Senate versions were supposedly described, deliberated, debated, reconciled and voted upon in a near miraculous 4 to 9 minutes per item, at that late hour. As author Anthony C. Sutton noted: "This miracle of speediness, never equaled before or after in the U.S. Congress, is ominously comparable to the rubber stamp lawmaking of the banana republics."

At 4:30 a.m. a prepared report of this Committee was handed to the printers. Senator Bristow of Kansas, the Republican leader, stated on the Congressional Record that the Conference Committee had met without notifying them and that Republicans were not present, and were given no opportunity to either read or sign the Conference Committee report.

The Conference report is normally read on the Senate floor. The Republicans did not even see the report. Some Senators stated on the floor of the Senate that they had no knowledge of the contents of the Bill. At 6:02 p.m., December 23rd, when many members had already left the Capitol for the Christmas holiday, the very same day the Bill was hurried through the House and Senate, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 into law.

The Act transferred control of the money supply of the United States from Congress to a private banking elite. It is not surprising that a bill granting a few national bankers a private money monopoly was passed in such a corrupted manner. As author Anthony C. Sutton noted: 'The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public intent."

Heroic Nebraska Senator Hitchcock, the only Senate Democrat working against the bill, had proposed numerous amendments to the bill aimed at making the Federal Reserve System a government agency (i.e. placing control in the Department of the Treasury), rather than a private monopoly, but these were all tabled - so great was the power of the Money Changers over Congress by then.

Heroic Nebraska Senator Hitchcock, the only Senate Democrat working against the bill, had proposed numerous amendments to the bill aimed at making the Federal Reserve System a government agency (i.e. placing control in the Department of the Treasury), rather than a private monopoly, but these were all tabled - so great was the power of the Money Changers over Congress by then...."

peepee » 29 Aug 2018 3:40 pm » wrote:...bill still describes some important hi$tory below...many republicrat rube$ are facile with all sorts of history: ...60's rock bands, playboy centerfolds, super bowl champions, beverly hillbillies episodes, etc. ad goddamned nauseam...unfortunately the important a$pect$ of hi$tory are foreign to the republicrat... gee, i wonder why?...

"...The Federal Reserve Act was railroaded through a carefully prepared Congressional Conference Committee scheduled during unlikely hours of 1:30 a.m. to 4:30 a Monday, December 22, 1913, when most members were sleeping, at which 20-40 substantial differences in the House and Senate versions were supposedly described, deliberated, debated, reconciled and voted upon in a near miraculous 4 to 9 minutes per item, at that late hour. As author Anthony C. Sutton noted: "This miracle of speediness, never equaled before or after in the U.S. Congress, is ominously comparable to the rubber stamp lawmaking of the banana republics."

At 4:30 a.m. a prepared report of this Committee was handed to the printers. Senator Bristow of Kansas, the Republican leader, stated on the Congressional Record that the Conference Committee had met without notifying them and that Republicans were not present, and were given no opportunity to either read or sign the Conference Committee report.

The Conference report is normally read on the Senate floor. The Republicans did not even see the report. Some Senators stated on the floor of the Senate that they had no knowledge of the contents of the Bill. At 6:02 p.m., December 23rd, when many members had already left the Capitol for the Christmas holiday, the very same day the Bill was hurried through the House and Senate, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 into law.

The Act transferred control of the money supply of the United States from Congress to a private banking elite. It is not surprising that a bill granting a few national bankers a private money monopoly was passed in such a corrupted manner. As author Anthony C. Sutton noted: 'The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public intent."

Heroic Nebraska Senator Hitchcock, the only Senate Democrat working against the bill, had proposed numerous amendments to the bill aimed at making the Federal Reserve System a government agency (i.e. placing control in the Department of the Treasury), rather than a private monopoly, but these were all tabled - so great was the power of the Money Changers over Congress by then.

Heroic Nebraska Senator Hitchcock, the only Senate Democrat working against the bill, had proposed numerous amendments to the bill aimed at making the Federal Reserve System a government agency (i.e. placing control in the Department of the Treasury), rather than a private monopoly, but these were all tabled - so great was the power of the Money Changers over Congress by then...."

Do you ever get tired of posting this idiotic bull ****.

Sgt Bilko » 30 Aug 2018 9:50 am » wrote: They don't call me 'Private Dildo' for nothing.

Wowser Wowser

peepee » 30 Aug 2018 10:22 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 30 Aug 2018 9:50 am » wrote: They don't call me 'General Bilko' for nothing.

I applaud you sir.

Poor peepee had to go pee!!

Sgt Bilko » 08 Aug 2018 11:00 am » wrote: Ah gee wiz, 50,000 years?? A pure idiotic ignorant atheist rant. Here is refutation of your idiocy. Refute it.

Evolution Problems

1 and 2 Big Bang

1. First there was nothing and then an immense mass.
Science - Matter can neither be created or destroyed by ordinary means.

2. It went bang creating an immense cloud of hydrogen that in places collapsed creating stars and planets.
Science - Jeans Instability (mass limit) formula defines what force it takes to collapse gas. Keep in mind Jupiter has an atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability

3. Life forming in a primordial goo.

Science
First entropy states that in a closed system the more complex molecules will drop to a lower level of energy and the less complex molecules will grow in energy until a constant level is reached for all. (The universe is considered a closed system.)
Second DNA is an extremely extremely long and complex double helix molecule containing intelligent information in a quaternary code of proteins to completely create the organism it is from. The universe is not old enough for this molecule to be formed much less all of the other parts of a single cell to be created.
Third how does organic compounds get created from inorganic compounds.

4. Darwinian evolution

Science - When single cells and higher organisms become immune to drugs and poisons codes of DNA are lost. The organisms that are killed have DNA that will be lost to the species or the part of the species it belongs to. In dogs breeding has created breeds with floppy ears. They have lost their DNA to put cartilage in their ears and they have problems with ear infections. All evidence points to loss of information rather than modifying it.

5. Mind and Morality

Science - with the previous issue the leap to intelligent and moral mind is too great a leap especially with losing survival abilities of strength and agility at the same time.

Summary

The famous (and reluctant) convert from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, put it well when he wrote,

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

A well-known atheist said that Darwin gave them a reason to be atheists. Science disproves evolution.

Without evolution that leaves God!!

Now run and ignore this like all other atheists do!!

This is an airtight case for theism! Praise Odin, my eyes have seen glory!

SJConspirator » 19 Sep 2018 12:21 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 08 Aug 2018 11:00 am » wrote: Ah gee wiz, 50,000 years?? A pure idiotic ignorant atheist rant. Here is refutation of your idiocy. Refute it.

Evolution Problems

1 and 2 Big Bang

1. First there was nothing and then an immense mass.
Science - Matter can neither be created or destroyed by ordinary means.

2. It went bang creating an immense cloud of hydrogen that in places collapsed creating stars and planets.
Science - Jeans Instability (mass limit) formula defines what force it takes to collapse gas. Keep in mind Jupiter has an atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability

3. Life forming in a primordial goo.

Science
First entropy states that in a closed system the more complex molecules will drop to a lower level of energy and the less complex molecules will grow in energy until a constant level is reached for all. (The universe is considered a closed system.)
Second DNA is an extremely extremely long and complex double helix molecule containing intelligent information in a quaternary code of proteins to completely create the organism it is from. The universe is not old enough for this molecule to be formed much less all of the other parts of a single cell to be created.
Third how does organic compounds get created from inorganic compounds.

4. Darwinian evolution

Science - When single cells and higher organisms become immune to drugs and poisons codes of DNA are lost. The organisms that are killed have DNA that will be lost to the species or the part of the species it belongs to. In dogs breeding has created breeds with floppy ears. They have lost their DNA to put cartilage in their ears and they have problems with ear infections. All evidence points to loss of information rather than modifying it.

5. Mind and Morality

Science - with the previous issue the leap to intelligent and moral mind is too great a leap especially with losing survival abilities of strength and agility at the same time.

Summary

The famous (and reluctant) convert from atheism to Christianity, C.S. Lewis, put it well when he wrote,

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

A well-known atheist said that Darwin gave them a reason to be atheists. Science disproves evolution.

Without evolution that leaves God!!

Now run and ignore this like all other atheists do!!

This is an airtight case for theism! Praise Odin, my eyes have seen glory!

I enjoy using science against atheists. They almost always run away. Scientific laws refute them every time.

...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote:...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

Boy, you’re a bit of a long winded **** ain’t ya.

...i know, i know...reading r hard, dear...

[...let's face it...unless ruse limbaugh discusses a political issue, ceduh is clueless...]

Cedar » 27 Sep 2018 7:06 am » wrote:

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote:...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

Boy, you’re a bit of a long winded **** ain’t ya.

Nevertheless, it IS an interesting read...

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote:...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

What a bunch of drivel nobody wants to read. Where do you dream up this BS?

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 7:30 am » wrote:

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote:...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

What a bunch of drivel nobody wants to read. Where do you dream up this BS?

He didn't "dream up this BS": It was an article from The Guardian. But then, it is well known on this forum that you hallucinate...

indago » 27 Sep 2018 7:26 am » wrote:

Cedar » 27 Sep 2018 7:06 am » wrote:

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote: In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind

Boy, you’re a bit of a long winded **** ain’t ya.

Nevertheless, it IS an interesting read...

Banks don't create IOU's. They receive them from John Doe, and enter them as a credit on the books.
That is the money creation in the first instance. People and or businesses which borrow money, they
create money in the first instance.

This is one form of money creation.

PeeWee is a monetary ignoramus.

indago » 27 Sep 2018 7:33 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 7:30 am » wrote:

peepee » 27 Sep 2018 6:51 am » wrote:...getting back to the thru$t of this magnificent thread and leaving behind the republicrat-radio-level inputs...the REALITY is that p. dildy, **** creek, squirmin8or, etc. assorted republicrat monetary ignoramuses galore, frequently have their doritos chutes open about some 'zillion dollar economy' even though they are WORSE than ignorant about the hideous origin, nature, etc... of even one 'dollar'...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Streetare correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
Advertisement
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

What a bunch of drivel nobody wants to read. Where do you dream up this BS?

He didn't "dream up this BS": It was an article from The Guardian. But then, it is well known on this forum that you hallucinate...

It is obvious to the casual observer that you are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything.

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 10:35 am » wrote:

indago » 27 Sep 2018 7:33 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 7:30 am » wrote: What a bunch of drivel nobody wants to read. Where do you dream up this BS?

He didn't "dream up this BS": It was an article from The Guardian. But then, it is well known on this forum that you hallucinate...

It is obvious to the casual observer that you are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything.

indago » 27 Sep 2018 2:33 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 10:35 am » wrote:

indago » 27 Sep 2018 7:33 am » wrote:
He didn't "dream up this BS": It was an article from The Guardian. But then, it is well known on this forum that you hallucinate...

It is obvious to the casual observer that you are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything.

A squeeky fiddle player is all you got??

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 3:21 pm » wrote:

indago » 27 Sep 2018 2:33 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 27 Sep 2018 10:35 am » wrote: It is obvious to the casual observer that you are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything.

A squeeky fiddle player is all you got??

Just look at him there, laughing away, just as happy as if he was in his right mind.