It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The simple solution to money

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
As I have thought it :

The state should be the only one with power to create money. Paper or electronic. No more banks=private people with that power. When someone needs a loan he borrows with 0 interest from the state run bank. When he pays the loan the money created disappear. All money needed to run the administration are created and used by the state, not borrowed from some banks by the state. The state can increase the money supply when it's needed - to let the economy grow, or decrease it when it's needed - when inflation appears.

Increase it by sending people money to spend or spending newly created money on public works, decrease it by instituting taxes. There will be no taxes when there is no need to decrease the money supply, the expenses for the state - create new money. If the economy is in good shape these new money will not create inflation.

And it will be in good shape, 0% interest and no taxes will make it so. 0% interest does not mean you don't have to pay it back, and that you are not checked before they give it to you, and they may even require a mortgage. Not low interest rates got us here, loans to people that can't pay, that were guaranteed by houses with inflated values, these got us here.

Before agreeing or not with this I hope you know about Andrew Jackson and what he wanted, about FED, about 1913 and so on. If you don't then search for these.
Here are some links :

Google Video Link


Google Video Link



I will not answer to someone who just stumbles here and starts saying things to which I have to write the entire history of money and banks to give him an answer.







[edit on 26-2-2009 by pai mei]




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I've watched the first vid and I hate propaganda videos. They are always so close, but also so far from the truth...
I loved the bit about:
"can you please lend me a hammer"
"IOU 1 hammer"
*doh*


But back on topic:
I think the system could work , BUT if it could be put into place, you would still have the problem of controlling it. I'm still trying to chew the 0%, but could work, I'ld have to "play it through"

The main reason for having national banks, is to stabilize the system without a government agenda. Otherwise you could easily have an irresponsibly overboosted economy (for re-election reasons) that will be followed by an mega-recession => i.e. you would need a very good 'checks and balance' system.

(I can't get the 2nd video to stream properly... *annoyed*)


@ community banking system (creating own local tender): The reason the governments don't like it is because there is no way of taxing it. And who will pay the national insurance (healthcare), for the roads, rubbish collections etc.?


I think the idea of letting the government create money is one of the best I've heard of.

BB,
Samuel



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Aldolas
 


The second video - search for "money masters" in google video.

Don't know about you but I always thought governments create money
The idea of a government - a nation depending on a private bank for it's money it's really had to accept.
The first time I heard "Country X is going bankrupt" I thought "How can that be ? Are they not the money creators ? Why are they stupid and borrow ?"
The only bad thing they could do is inflation, and that can be solved, but never bankruptcy.

0% interest - because the government does not need to profit from you. The government is not a bank, it's an organization that guards the rules for the society to work. And takes care of the money for that society. Nothing done for "profit".

About "checks and balances". They can be enforced much better than now. The FED is beyond anyone's control, and they can inflate or deflate the money supply creating a "crisis" whenever they want.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The first video is the usual propagnda half-truth
The second video is a MUST WATCH!

I've still got to chew that second video.

@ not government controlled bank, yes I knew that, I am a qualified banker and there are important reasons to have an independent national bank. (And I'm sure I new that before as well, I think?! )

@ Fractional reserve banking: How often do they want to repeat the lie? Normal banks (i.e. non-national banks) do not create money!!! FFS They do not create money. They would love to, but they can't! That's why they fear a bank run!

@ 0%: In the interest of money scarcity you need a price on money. The usual 'supply and demand' rule. Otherwise you will have hyperinflation.


To come back to my last post, I said I would have to 'play it through'. After a lot of thinking and (in-brain)simulating I have come to the following conclusion (subject to change
):
a. The best system would be to nationalize the 'national banks' and keep corporate banks.
b. Force cororate banks to act responsibly (the way the Bank I used to work for acted. Example @ bottom of post
c. The Department for national banking has to be run seperately from the normal financing of the government. i.e. the chancellor and the Bankingminister BOTH report to the President, Prime Minister etc.

Thus the government can carefully adjust the moneysupply (i.e. the inflationary/deflationary risks) within the system by adjusting taxes and government spending as well as the interest rates/amount of money lent into the system. Furthermore companies (both big and small) as well as private customers could get good advice from the local branch of their trusted banks.
AND all this could be implemented cheaply and quickly without throwing everything into complete chaos.

I think the answer may be that simple.
BB,
Samuel
p.s. When I worked in the bank, we had customers come to us and ask for a loan, sometimes essential (car to get to work) sometimes nonessential (mortgage for a house they couldn't afford). Sometimes we went through their finances and found out that the customers would not be able to pay the installments. We would then explain this to them and deny the loan. Very often, these same customers would get the loan somewhere else and within 3-5 months we would have to cancel direct debits, first the phone bills, then the credit cards, heating etc. etc. Within a year or two they were usually back crying their eyes out and begging us to overstretch their overdraft even further to give them money for food....
We hated it everytime. But what do you say to the customers? Told you so?

Oh and by the way: Guess which banks they went to?
Ever heard of the Royal bank of Scotland or the Citigroup???

I'll stop now typing, otherwise I risk a warning from the mods



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aldolas
 


Banks do create money, they can give to people 10 times more money than they have. When the money are returned they disappear but the banks keep the interest. This is how I understand it, is it so ?
And why do we need banks for this ? I told you 0% interest is good, just give only to people that will pay. You have an unpaid debt of 1$ you don't get any other loan ever.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by pai mei]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aldolas@ Fractional reserve banking: How often do they want to repeat the lie? Normal banks (i.e. non-national banks) do not create money!!! FFS They do not create money. They would love to, but they can't! That's why they fear a bank run!

@ 0%: In the interest of money scarcity you need a price on money. The usual 'supply and demand' rule. Otherwise you will have hyperinflation.

Don't take it personally, but I can't be asked to think up a good exaple for fractional banking again so I'll just do it quickly:
Fractional reserve in this example of 10%

0. Bank has 0 money
1. you win $1 million in the lottery and take it to the bank.
2. Bank must keep 10% => 100,000
3. Bank lends all the rest (900,000) to a customer to buy a house off mr. a
4. mr. a (after having sold his house) deposits 900,000 into bank
5. Bank must keep 10% => 90,000
6. Bank lends all the rest (810,000) to another customer to buy a house off mr. b
7. mr. b (after having sold his house) deposits 810,000 into bank
8. Bank must keep 10% => 81,000
9. Bank could lend 729,000 to the next customer, but there is no customer because I can't be asked to make another one up!!!

So it's the end of the year and let's check the banks balance sheets:
REMEMBER You only deposited $1million into the bank:
The bank has $2.71 million in deposits
The bank has lent $1,71 million in mortgages
The bank can lend a further $729,000
The bank has a legally required minum of $271,000 of 'reserves'.

Did the bank create money out of thin air? NO!!!
(By the way if you continue the example then you will end up with just under $10mill in deposits, which is 10 times as much as was oriiginally deposited.)

Now, the worst thing that can happen to a bank is a bank run: why? Well, the bank would have to call in the mortgages to pay everyone back and they can't get the money out of the properties fast enough.

If you don't understand it, read the topic up from a non conspiracy site and/or reread the example. Don't believe the disinfo/propaganda on this subject, PLEASE!


@ 0% and doing away with banks:
Ok, so you want to get your loans from your local government office, i.e. local council?
You'll be waiting about 5 years for the 50 page application forms!!!

0% loans: so everybody can just go to their local council and ask for a loan for a car, house, new business etc.

Within 6 months you will be paying $ millions for a loaf of bread. Rewatch the 2nd video. Remember what happened during the war for independence(I think it was that one)? Where someone is quoted saying: "A wagonload of money wouldn't buy a wagonload of goods!" (or read up on causes for hyperinflation)
0% loans will not work and It is a complete nuts idea (don't take it personally) to get a loan from a qualified council penpusher as opposed to a qualified banker!

Blessings,
Samuel
EDIT to add => I didn't want to offend any council workers, but they themselves usually understand that the burocreacy that they are bound by is a pain in the proverbials.
p.s. Didn't proofread, so if you find spelling or grammar mistakes ]> keep 'em!


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Aldolas]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join