andyofborg Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Printing money always seems to bring up images of failed states that collapsed through hyper-inflation, but here's the thing - money must be created at some point and spent into society. As long as that money IS spent into society, on goods and services that grow our economy, then a government/nation printing its own treasury notes is no different to the current system, except those notes would be interest free, lifting an unnecessary weight off our economy. it may be possible to print and inject money in such a form and at such a rate to avoid hyperinflation but I think that to do it would need some tight management of the process and strong regulation of the economy. Who currently benefits from the privilege of that creation (credit/debt)? The money currently in circulation had to be loaned into existence at some point, so who is loaning it and who is charging interest on it? we all do.... savers lend money to banks, who lend that money to other people. borrowers pay interest on the loans which goes to fund the interest which banks pay savers and the overheads of running the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Printing money always seems to bring up images of failed states that collapsed through hyper-inflation, but here's the thing - money must be created at some point and spent into society. As long as that money IS spent into society, on goods and services that grow our economy, then a government/nation printing its own treasury notes is no different to the current system, except those notes would be interest free, lifting an unnecessary weight off our economy. ^ Is not in the bankers' interests obviously. I mean, how is any money created? Who currently benefits from the privilege of that creation (credit/debt)? The money currently in circulation had to be loaned into existence at some point, so who is loaning it and who is charging interest on it? Your whole argument is based on the premise that the "money" in circulation is actually worth something. It isn't. The ONLY thing of value supporting the current "money" in circulation is your sweat equity and a collective ignorance/trust in it. The only "value" behind it is your willingness to accept it. The day that a collective majority refuse to accept the current fiat notes as "currency" is the day the deception collapses. Go and look at one of your pieces of fiat paper money ... it will (probably) have the words "note" or "promissory note"; maybe even the words "promise to pay the bearer ..." ... this means it is a PROMISE to pay ... it is not a payment itself. It is a promise to pay the bearer the equivalent in value, when something of value actually exists again. In the UK, if you read the statutes and the rules of the BoE, you can exchange your worthless promissory note for (drumroll please) ... different denominations of worthless promissory notes. ... and on top of all of this, the system is designed to keep us enslaved indefinitely. The debt can NEVER be paid back. Never. By design. The BoE prints the money. The BoE is the lender. It has a monopoly on both supply and circulation. It is privately owned. So, lets look at a simplistic example. The BoE, on day 1 of operation, prints £1000. Coincidentally, I need to borrow £1000. So, if I borrow the available £1000 at 7% interest, then in 1 year, I need to pay back £1070. But how can I? The printer has only printed £1000. There is only £1000 in circulation. It isn't possible to pay back £1070 because there is only £1000 in total, in circulation. Simplistic; yes. However, it shows the absurdity of the system and the nefarious nature of its design. It is a system of debt that is impossible to repay and is based on "money" that does not exist. It is being built on our sweat equity as a form of enslavement, as we work harder, for longer hours, for less money, to earn worthless pieces of paper, to repay a debt we did not create and which can never be repaid. This is not an accident. This is its goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Your whole argument is based on the premise that the "money" in circulation is actually worth something. It isn't. The ONLY thing of value supporting the current "money" in circulation is your sweat equity and a collective ignorance/trust in it. The only "value" behind it is your willingness to accept it. The day that a collective majority refuse to accept the current fiat notes as "currency" is the day the deception collapses. then what? a cash free society? how would that work? do you want to go back to bartering or highway robbery? do you think we can go back to the gold standard? how do you think that would be any different to what we have now? The BoE prints the money. The BoE is the lender. It has a monopoly on both supply and circulation. It is privately owned. The Bank of England isn't the lender. It was nationalised in 1946, so its owned by us, the people So, lets look at a simplistic example. The BoE, on day 1 of operation, prints £1000. Coincidentally, I need to borrow £1000. So, if I borrow the available £1000 at 7% interest, then in 1 year, I need to pay back £1070. But how can I? The printer has only printed £1000. There is only £1000 in circulation. It isn't possible to pay back £1070 because there is only £1000 in total, in circulation. Simplistic; yes. However, it shows the absurdity of the system and the nefarious nature of its design. but you have 100% of the notes, so no one can buy anything you produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 but you have 100% of the notes, so no one can buy anything you produce. I said it was simplistic ... but you have completely ignored the main point. How do you repay the "debt"? If there is only the "principal" in circulation, how do you repay the "principal" + "interest"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 then what? a cash free society? how would that work? do you want to go back to bartering or highway robbery? do you think we can go back to the gold standard? how do you think that would be any different to what we have now? The Bank of England isn't the lender. It was nationalised in 1946, so its owned by us, the people but you have 100% of the notes, so no one can buy anything you produce. Nonsense they could pay you in second life currency. Also, Albert or is it Alfred, the old man that lives on the streets in town pays for things with bottle caps, the shop account for the bottle caps and pebbles as if they are normal money, they are then handed over to the banks with all the other takings, don't know what happens to them after that point, but I would assume the bank uses them for accounting purposes and then eventually they will be discarded, just like money is burned at some point in time (after the use by date). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 we all do.... savers lend money to banks, who lend that money to other people. borrowers pay interest on the loans which goes to fund the interest which banks pay savers and the overheads of running the bank. Ok let me put it a different way. Credit, no matter where it comes from, serves the same purpose - it is legal tender with which people can use as a means of exchange. With this in mind, what's better for society - credit which has interest attached based on the arbitrary demands of private shareholders (on top of the other costs you mentioned), or credit from which the only profiteers are society and industry? We're not talking about people profiting from selling goods and services in the real economy - that kind of profit is necessary. However, profit from merely creating accounting entries on a fractional reserve basis, which is how commercial banking works, is usury and can only be seen as an exclusive privilege, currently held by banking cartels. Now, if the credit loaned into the economy always has that extra margin attached to it, how can society as a whole ever pay back the interest on that credit when only the principal is loaned into existence? To pay back principal + interest, more credit must be created, and with the reliance on this privately owned privilege, more interest is attached. The cycle of unrepayable debt continues. I have been in economics forums, contacted economists and academics in this field and nobody seems to have an answer to this. The only conclusion people can draw is that "this is how it is". Of course, there are solutions that economic reformists have been discussing for the best part of a century... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I said it was simplistic ... but you have completely ignored the main point. How do you repay the "debt"? If there is only the "principal" in circulation, how do you repay the "principal" + "interest"? :hihi: only just noticed your post. I pretty much said the same thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 The Bank of England isn't the lender. It was nationalised in 1946, so its owned by us, the people but you have 100% of the notes, so no one can buy anything you produce. ..................................................................................................................................................................... Hi andy I think this has been shown before, but give it a try anyway. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Hi andy I think this has been shown before, but give it a try anyway. http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 I tell ya, the joys of western imperialism crammed into just over 2 hours - quite a feat, but essential nevertheless. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I did answer you, you just didn't like the answers Why are you afraid to answer? edit: I notice that all your posts on this forum have been on this subject - would it be that you have joined this forum just to try "converting" people to your nonsense. Afraid? Oh come now ... are you really going to stoop to that level? auto98uk ... you did not answer. Earlier in this thread you "challenged" one of my posts, to which I responded with specifics re: legalese being different to common usage of English words. To refresh your selective memory, it was pertaining to the word "includes". Your response was negative, dismissive and generic, without any specifics nor with any reasoned rebuttal. In other words, when faced with specific, verifiable information, you bottled it. Like most of your posts, if not all, whilst maintaining a consistently dismissive and negative tone, you provide very little in terms of specifics. Could this be because you do not have any? Regarding this ridiculous assertion; edit: I notice that all your posts on this forum have been on this subject - would it be that you have joined this forum just to try "converting" people to your nonsense. If not for your myopic stance on this matter and your obvious inability to read what is before your eyes, then may I remind you of my earlier post (#118 ) Personal choice and personal responsibility, I guess. Hey, as I've already said in my previous posts; this isn't for everyone. For many, the comforts and convenience of the current system is great. More power to them ... hardly a "recruitment" drive, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.