There seems to be a lot of confussion banded around with regard to Inflation. Inflation is merely increasing the money supply relative to a finite pool of resources. Money as debt can be inflated IF more and debt is issued. Physical money printed by the treasury or a central bank can be inflated IF an excess is printed. Money backed by a commodity (gold, silver or otherwise) can be inflated IF new supply of that commodity is discovered requiring the money supply to be increased. In short, increasing the money supply (whatever form that money takes) in ANY way IS the very act of inflating the money. True the treasury CAN and SHOULD print debt free dollars to pay off the debt but this will only work if the excessive debt (remember 97% of current money is issued as debt) is vaporised (i.e defaulted on, payed down, marked to market and settled). In other words bring all debt (money as debt) out into the open and clean house. This will vaporise tens of trillions of debt (money as debt) which has to be countered with printing debt free dollars by the treasury. When this is completed there can be NO way possible for any other entity to create money (i.e 100% reserve banking is mandatory). There HAS to be a control afterwhich on the amount of new money that the treasury can print ... like I said in previous post, Bill Still and Karl Denninger have covered all of this by mandating that only new money can be printed for an increase in population.
not true, an increase in money supply is only inflationary if goods or services remain constant or fall. In fact you could have stable money and a fall in available goods and services and have inflation. If dollars printed by the gov. went to increase goods and services then no inflation would result. However if given to banks to buy hard assets then yes you would see inflation. True the treasury CAN and SHOULD print debt free dollars to pay off the debt but this will only work if the excessive debt (remember 97% of current money is issued as debt) is vaporised (i.e defaulted on, payed down, marked to market and settled). In other words bring all debt (money as debt) out into the open and clean house. This will vaporise tens of trillions of debt (money as debt) which has to be countered with printing debt free dollars by the treasury. When this is completed there can be NO way possible for any other entity to create money (i.e 100% reserve banking is mandatory). There HAS to be a control afterwhich on the amount of new money that the treasury can print ... like I said in previous post, Bill Still and Karl Denninger have covered all of this by mandating that only new money can be printed for an increase in population. [/QUOTE] This is why i think bill still's (although i love the money masters) fixing the money supply to population is in error. It should be fixed to the amount of goods and services that are available in said currency. each generation supposedly is more productive then the other. If true you would actually see deflation the money per person stays fixed. I guess it could work if adjusted over time for increase in productivity, but that would basically be pegging it to production in a round about way
Quote from Ghost of Cutten: That's hypocritical double standards. Both hypocritical and double?? my,my.... If you had used that logic, you would never have introduced a central bank in the first place, since the first central bank had ZERO years of evidence to rely on before it was introduced. True, nevertheless there were economic crises before central banking, so blaming everythong on it is silly. Also, what about the long evidence *against* central banking? We have had 100+ years of central banking around the world, with numerous banking crises and collapsing economies. Again, you are using a false assumption that without central banking everything would have been fine and dandy in the last 100 years. BUT!! If we look at US history before 1900 we see that there were bank failures and economic crises left and right. So it is safe to conclude that central banking isn't the primary cause of economic crises. I would say they are actually NATURAL occurance in societies, because the economy being cyclical... How many more centuries do you want before accepting that the system is flawed? What if I say without central bankign we would have had MORE emergencies??? You can't really prove me wrong...
Can you give us a historical example? So just I could look for lack of economic crises...Oh hell, just see my next post... You actually can, if the government keeps changing (lowering) the gold back up of the money. Or if the population keeps dying off, there will be more and more gold for less and less people... Why do you fear hyperinflation? When was the last time it ever happened in the US? It hasn't, thanks to central banking.
History lesson for those who get a hard on when they hear full reserve banking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Amsterdam Here is how it ended: "Fall of the Bank The Bank was at first a strictly deposit bank with 100 percent backing. Because of the secretive nature of its administration, it was not generally known that individual depositors had been allowed to overdraw their accounts as early as 1657. In later years, the Bank also provided large loans to the Dutch East India Company and the Municipality of Amsterdam. By 1790 these loans became public and the premium on the bank money disappeared, by the end of that year the Bank virtually admitted insolvency by issuing a notice that silver would be sold to holders of bank money at a 10 percent discount. The City of Amsterdam took the Bank over, and eventually closed it for good in 1819." So the full reserve bank eventually went insolvent... But we have to give it to them, it took more than 100 years...
It just confirms most people's suspicions that most people can't be trusted as far as money is concerned. When huge amounts of money are sloshing about as in the banking system then strict rules and heavy punishments are a MUST. It's a sad reflection on human nature but oh so true ! Whoever scrapped those restrictions in the 1990s should be in jail for life !! ( The Banking Act 1933). Bonnie and Clyde were a joke compared to those thieves
CommentsThe footage of him speaking on the Senate floor has become something of a cult flick for the particularly wonky progressive. The date was November 4, 1999. Senator Byron Dorgan, in a patterned red tie, sharp dark suit and hair with slightly more color than it has today, was captured only by the cameras of CSPAN2. "I want to sound a warning call today about this legislation," he declared, swaying ever so slightly right, then left, occasionally punching the air in front of him with a slightly closed fist. "I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible." The legislation was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (alternatively known as Gramm Leach Bliley), which allowed banks to merge with insurance companies and investment houses. And Dorgan was, at the time, on a proverbial island with his concerns. Only eight senators would vote against the measure -- lionized by its proponents, including senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now staffing President Obama, as the most important breakthrough in the worlds of finance and politics in decades. "It was more like a tidal wave in 1999," the North Dakota Democrat recalled of that vote in an interview with the Huffington Post. "You've seen the roll call. We didn't really have to deal with push back because they had such a strong, strong body of support for what they call modernization that the vote was never in doubt... The title of the bill was 'The Financial Modernization Act.' And so if you don't want to modernize, I guess you're considered hopelessly old fashioned." Ten years later, Dorgan has been vindicated. His warning that banks would become "too big to fail" has proven basically true in the wake of the current financial crisis. He seems eerily prescient for claiming then that Congress would "look back ten years time and say we should not have done this." But he wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin and Richard Bryan also cast nay votes. As did Sen. Russ Feingold, who, in a statement from his office, recalled that "Gramm-Leach-Bliley was just one of several bad policies that helped lead to the credit market crisis and the severe recession it helped cause." The late Sen. Paul Wellstone also opposed the bill, warning at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place." Outside government, doomsday-ing over the repeal of Glass-Steagall seemed far more palatable a position to take. Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College, warned that "nobody will be able to discipline a Citigroup" once the legislation passed, because the banks would be too big and the issues too complex.
And here is number one villain of the world's banking crisis for letting it happen. Bribes etc. involved to get this bit of "daylight robbery" through, I expect so. The facts will come out sooner or later The original caption read "Bill, lets call her Monica"
Come on, did you read my post. My first sentence was There seems to be a lot of confussion banded around with regard to Inflation. Inflation is merely increasing the money supply relative to a finite pool of resources As for pegging the amount of debt free dollars to population or services/resource, these are merely details. Why are people always trying to obvuscuate this issue with side details. It's not rocket science. Debt free treasury issued dollars and 100% reserve banking are 99% of the solution. That should be clear.