Here is the video again DB... you tell us what percent of this info elicits a "good grief" and why. I will tell you the only objection I remember I had in the entire video. I think the author took a bit of license when he said that fractional reserve banking allows the banks to "steal". They have a license to create money from nothing so I would not call it stealing. so here is your chance to show us you really understand something instead of just issuing bromides like volume leads price or good grief. Tell us how this video gets the eonomics or the banking or the taxation wrong. <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/iFDe5kUUyT0?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/iFDe5kUUyT0?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Oh, not this video again. Banks do not need treasuries or deposits to create money. They just create the money out of thin air constrained by prudence to lend more, and this lending in turn creates deposits. Treasuries are largely used for reserves management, which are like cash for the banks. You could function in a fractional reserve system where the fed would buy/sell gold and not treasuries for reserves management. If you are concerned that debt cannot be paid back tomorrow since it exceeds the amount of money in the system, think about velocity of money. If you sell goods, pay some interest back, you can indeed repay debt that exceeds amount of money in the system conditional on at least some money being available in the system.
Volume doesn't "lead" price. Volume represents transactions. Without a transaction, there is no price, only a wish. Therefore, volume and price are coincident. As to the rest of it, you really ought to consider whether or not YouTube ought to be your GoTo source of information. The whole conspiracy thing has been tiresome ever since the "grassy knoll" and serves only to provide the gullible with a rationalization for doing nothing. Income inequality and uneven distribution of wealth existed long before the Fed, or even banks, and are not in and of themselves the cause of our current difficulties.
I like your being concise, would you mind sharing what you think are the reasons for the current particularly high inequality in many societies around the globe at the moment (I take it that we can agree on the status quo as presented by Piketty)?
Did you just ignore what I said? Or was what I said that unclear? Did I not ask you about death taxes applied universally to the 100%, rather than to the 99%? As to the rest of what you have said, yes, I understand that you want no taxes whatsoever. I want peace on earth and for all men to be brothers. The use of taxation to impact inequality is NOT a leftist/communist idea, don't be silly. It's an idea that's based on sound economics, both theoretical and empirical, and has been studied quite extensively.
Marty, Here is what I would suggest. Take the death taxes and put all the money into our public school system. That would benefit our entire society, both the rich and the poor. The problem again though is most of the estate wealth cannot be touched because it's in trusts. I really have no solution for that. Perhaps passing a law that requires ALL trusts to pay an annual fee of some sort. I don't know what all the laws are on that. I haven't been following this dialogue here lately but Marty did you ever come up with a solution as to how we reconcile the issue that whatever taxes we pass in this country, they go straight to the middle class. The rich will never pay anything in taxes. And most of those rich of course are the very liberals advocating FOR higher taxes. Must be a nice position to be in, get all the upside of looking like a saint without ever having to contribute.
What I think -- or what anybody else thinks -- is not particularly important or even useful unless those thoughts can be translated into actions that help to solve whatever problem one is thinking about. Rants do not qualify. In this particular case, rants about the Fed and banks and government and taxes and so on and so on and so on are not only masturbatory but pointless, at least in terms of changing anything. If one wants to understand why we are where we are, he must first understand just what the functions of banks et al are with regard to the organization of a society. To get at that, one must then consider just why and how societies are organized to begin with, and for that one must go back further than a few decades. Most people would likely find this boring since there is so little interest in history these days, but those who find it engaging and work their way forward will reach an understanding of why we are where we are that they won't find on YouTube. One can chew, for example, on the notion that until the Industrial Revolution in England -- which was, interestingly, coincident with the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution -- the organization of societies had not changed substantially since the days of the Roman Empire. Most will wonder what the hell that has to do with anything. But some will pursue this line of thought to see where it leads, at least until the late 1960s and early 70s, which is when everything began to turn sour for the middle and lower classes.
Yes, I agree, it would make a lot of sense for the money raised through death taxes to be invested in an optimal way. As to tax avoidance, I think we're stumbling towards a solution to the issue you describe... Firstly, I think there's a pretty meaningful crackdown on global tax avoidance capabilities which appears to be actually bearing fruit somewhat. Secondly, I think the giving pledge is also a step in the right direction (and, like I said, I am personally intending to act according to it). Death taxes by "peer pressure", in a way. Finally, my whole point here was to try and separate the idea from the implementation. The poor quality of the implementation is our collective problem and our fault, since we elect the governments that fail us in this. Methinks, the solution to such a situation isn't to discard the idea, but rather to improve the quality of the government. As to your statement regarding the political views of the rich, it appears that empirical evidence suggests the opposite. For instance, see this paper here: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8864478 Here's an excerpt from the abstract: "But until now there has been little systematic evidence about the truly wealthy, such as the top 1 percent. We report the results of a pilot study of the political views and activities of the top 1 percent or so of US wealth-holders. We find that they are extremely active politically and that they are much more conservative than the American public as a whole with respect to important policies concerning taxation, economic regulation, and especially social welfare programs. Variation within this wealthy group suggests that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wealth-holders (people with $40 million or more in net worth) may tend to hold still more conservative views that are even more distinct from those of the general public."