Liberal Forum

MarkMathews » 10 Apr 2019 9:44 am » wrote:
Sup, peepee. We've missed you. I just thought I'd say hello and... uh... see if you would be a pal and throw one of those most excellent insults my way. I mean... if you're not to (sic) busy and all. : )

peepee » 10 Apr 2019 9:53 am » wrote:
...don't worry, snarky!....you'll get some...you've truly earned it!..

MarkMathews » 10 Apr 2019 9:44 am » wrote:

peepee » 10 Apr 2019 9:32 am » wrote:....i sense a lot of goddamned fool republican monetary ignoramuses are applauding trump's choice for the [not] federal [no] reserve... ...squirmy, p. dildy, dweebzer, scary larry, vague-***, ceduh, neo-corn, snarky mark, **** creek, goofboy, jism gulp, independspants, hillbilly boy, roadrash, the ****, etc. republican-radio-level numbskulls galore, are all happy with trump's latest bankster-puppet hopeful...KASAAA: keep america $tooooooooooopid again and again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGeC44jjOgs

Sup, peepee. We've missed you. I just thought I'd say hello and... uh... see if you would be a pal and throw one of those most excellent insults my way. I mean... if you're not to busy and all. : )

indago » 10 Apr 2019 9:57 am » wrote:
You were included...

peepee » 10 May 2019 10:06 am » wrote:...hat creek has made a step towards honesty and understanding with the following post to me at https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41376&u=0&start=60 :

"You are aware of fractional reserve banking so I don't get how the concept is foreign to you.....

When I sign a promissory note, aka promise to pay, aka loan doc, I create something of value.

It didn't exist until I charged the instrument, the note, the loan doc, with my signature.

I assign that note to the bank, BOOM 50K CREATED and the bank CANNOT keep it...they must transfer ... 50K of new money...back to me..."

...i'm fine with this after my minimal editing...btw, who is the lender and who is the borrower in your $cenario, hat creek?...

Hat_Creek » 10 May 2019 11:14 am » wrote:That is a relationship question and doesn't pertain to who created the money. The relationship is reciprocal.....

sooted up Cyndi » 10 May 2019 12:45 pm » wrote:I want to know right now? LOL That if inflation rises? aka, the china tariffs? Say it costs more to buy everything? Doesn't the GDP RISE ALSO? who can answer this for me? and doesn't this look good??? blaaaaaa

peepee » 12 May 2019 6:02 am » wrote:

sooted up Cyndi » 10 May 2019 12:45 pm » wrote:I want to know right now? LOL That if inflation rises? aka, the china tariffs? Say it costs more to buy everything? Doesn't the GDP RISE ALSO? who can answer this for me? and doesn't this look good??? blaaaaaa

...cyndi, i'd like to communicate with you but i don't speak/understand your particular maine republican ubby-dubby dialect...are you from waldo county?...

...also a little tip for you: ...gain some honest knowledge about the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar before you work the snarky pleaser about some zillion-dollar global economy!...just a thought!..

peepee » 12 May 2019 6:02 am » wrote:


...cyndi, i'd like to communicate with you but i don't speak/understand your particular maine republican ubby-dubby dialect...are you from waldo county?...

...also a little tip for you: ...gain some honest knowledge about the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar before you work the snarky pleaser about some zillion-dollar global economy!...just a thought!..

peepee » 12 May 2019 5:54 am » wrote:

Hat_Creek » 10 May 2019 11:14 am » wrote:That is a relationship question and doesn't pertain to who created the money. The relationship is reciprocal.....

(...where are all the republican-sucking 'christian' crusaders when you need them?) proverbs 22:7 The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is a slave to the lender....hc, you digging being the $lave in your 'reciprocal relationship'?!

Hat_Creek » 12 May 2019 4:03 pm » wrote:And, it isn't a master/slave relationship. It's voluntary servitude.

peepee » 13 May 2019 5:42 am » wrote:


...proverb from the book of hat creek: 'It's good to be a $lave as long as you are a hou$e ***'

Velo » 14 May 2019 1:51 am » wrote:
I know you were making a joke but this is unironically how most people think.

If your only options are to be a house *** or field ***, you might as well choose the former. Most people would rather not be starving artists or musicians.

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:

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 Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

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."

omh » 13 Jun 2019 8:30 am » wrote:So who created the money supply? tyrants controlling the ever changing population arriving next as reproduced so far..

sooted up Cyndi » 04 Dec 2018 1:53 pm » wrote:
The force from jecklle island, the BOOK!