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.
Pejeu
Why is ATS eating your posts, people?
greencmp, the quote tags seem to be ROFLSTOMPING you.
She is saying banking the way we know it should be outlawed.
She is concurring with me, basically.
Enjoy your cognitive dissonance.edit on 2013/10/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)
crimvelvet
reply to post by Pejeu
On the contrary, navydoc.
It's you and greencmp who are simply too bloody thick to understand how all banks issue money, not just the central bank....
Thanks for engaging our friendly neighborhood communist, it is nice to take a break. I think centralized state (or near state) banking is the problem. I think there should be a gold standard, lots of independent banks and very little regulation....
No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform (p. 448).
In Human Action, Mises said that the government's task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is.
"What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract"
crimvelvet
reply to post by greencmp
crimvelvet
reply to post by Pejeu
On the contrary, navydoc.
It's you and greencmp who are simply too bloody thick to understand how all banks issue money, not just the central bank....
Thanks for engaging our friendly neighborhood communist, it is nice to take a break. I think centralized state (or near state) banking is the problem. I think there should be a gold standard, lots of independent banks and very little regulation....
At this point I am having no problem following Pejeu thoughts.
Basically he agrees with at least part of what Mises is saying, the part I quoted. When Pejeu uses the word 'Bank' he means Fractional Reserve Banking.
The key factor is as Mises said:
No bank must be permitted to expand the total amount of its deposits subject to check or the balance of such deposits of any individual customer, be he a private citizen or the U.S. Treasury, otherwise than by receiving cash deposits in legal-tender banknotes from the public or by receiving a check payable by another domestic bank subject to the same limitations. This means a rigid 100 percent reserve for all future deposits; that is, all deposits not already in existence on the first day of the reform (p. 448).
In short NO FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING. NO making money out of thin air.
As far as regulations go Mises is saying bankers should be forced to adhere to contracts just as the rest of us do.
In Human Action, Mises said that the government's task is to enforce contracts. Among these contracts are contracts for redeeming money-certificates for money metals on demand. He defined a money-certificate a receipt for a money metal that has 100% of the promised metal in reserve. He said that banks should not be favored by the government. They should not be allowed the right to break contracts, which is what a refusal to redeem money-certificates on demand is.
"What is needed to prevent any further credit expansion is to place the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract"
Source: Mises on Money
Although I would prefer a gold standard, again I have to agree with Pejeu that it is too late. Most of the world's gold has been scarfed up by bankers and governments so that leaves the little guy out in the cold.
Basically Mises suggestion, freeze the amount of US dollars and do not print any more makes the best sense. Pejeu and I were just brainstorming to see if there is a better option.
As far as lots of money warehouses and venture capitalists, Pejeu and I said nothing about regulating them past what Mises has already suggested. No printing more money and abide by contract law. Although I do like Madame guillotine as punishment....
As far as Pejeu being a socialist, or communist, it does not mean he doesn't have a brain. If us little folk do not start mending fences and figuring out what we DO AGREE ON we are all going to find ourselves wearing serfs collars.
Now, about collectivism (the thread topic), how does this favored banking system fit into it?
The speech of Sen. Daniel Webster, during the debate over the reauthorization of the Second National Bank of the U.S. in 1832..
“A disordered currency is one of the greatest of evils. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy. And it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is one of the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation: These bear lightly the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with fraudulent currencies and robberies committed with depreciated paper.”
Source
crimvelvet
reply to post by greencmp
It doesn't . It cuts the blood supply to the parasites. By cutting the stealth tax of currency devaluation it promotes the growth of the economy by shifting wealth back to the middle/working class.
Get rid of excess regulations and the economy would really explode. Once you have a healthy economy, one that favors small business entrepreneurship you have an integrated community producing wealth. Or as Mises puts it " peaceful cooperation within the framework of society."
It is the elite with their fraudulent banking/monetary system and strangling red tape that have given us the current sick economy/society. The appeal of socialism and communism is a reaction against the problems in the current system and so we get all the "Bandaids" that only waste money and seem to make matters worse instead of better. (Unless of course you are a politician buying votes with the money from the middle class.) By labeling the current system 'Capitalism' which it is not, you have a reaction against the concept of 'Capitalism' so it is immediately dismissed as a solution much to the delight of the corporate and banking CEOs who want no competition.
BardingTheBard
Pejeu
Has it ever occurred to you that truth doesn't need as much defending as lies
It doesn't need defending no... but it does benefit from mentioning out loud again.
Seeds need rain. Truths need voice.
greencmp
Super, I don't see a huge chasm here either with respect to competitive banking and normal bankruptcy proceedings.
Now, about collectivism (the thread topic), how does this favored banking system fit into it?
greencmp
Like I thought, we are in agreement.
Now the question for our communist disinformation agent is, how does good banking fit into collectivism?
....That's why the lending side of the business needs to be separated from the cash warehouse / payment clearing house side.
The Glass-Steagall Act was passed, limiting speculation and preventing banks from gambling with money entrusted to them. Regular commercial banks were separated from investment banks dealing with stocks and bonds, in order to prevent bankers from creating stock offerings and then underwriting or selling the offerings by hyping the stock. Banks had to choose to be either commercial banks or investment banks. Commercial banks were prohibited from underwriting most securities, with the exception of government-issued bonds, speculative abuses were regulated through the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.....
The Glass-Steagall Act... separated commercial banking from securities trading; and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was created in 1974 to regulate commodity futures and option markets and to protect market participants from price manipulation, abusive sales practices, and fraud. But again the speculators have managed to get around the rules. Derivative traders claim they are not dealing in "securities" or "futures" because nothing is being traded; and just to make sure, they induced Congress to empower the head of the CFTC to grant waivers to that effect, and they set up offshore hedge funds that remained small, unregistered and unregulated. They also had the Glass-Steagall Act repealed. .
As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.
The Fed reports that 95 percent of its profits are now returned to the U.S. Treasury." But a review of its balance sheet, which is available on the Internet, shows that it reports as profits only the interest received from the federal securities it holds as reserves. No mention is made of the much greater windfall afforded to the banks that are the Fed's corporate owners, which use the securities as the "reserves" that get multiplied many times over in the form of loans. The Federal Reserve maintains that it is now audited every year by Price Waterhouse and the Government Accounting Office (GAO), an arm of Congress; but some functions remain off limits to the GAO, including its transactions with foreign central banks and its open market operations (the operations by which it creates money with accounting entities). Thus the Fed's most important - and most highly suspect - functions remain beyond public scrutiny.
So, what are you saying?
[photo of protester]
This looks so cool, doesn't it? The hearts in the 'O's, the baby being held by her hip daddy---how could we disagree with the slogan: 'The Common Good Trumps Individual Self-Interest'?...
There is a difference between society and government. Our government was created to protect our individual rights. Through the government we are able to build roads and bring water to our homes, and protect ourselves against those who would do us harm both as individuals and as a nation. We have a three branch government designed to keep any one branch (legislative, judicial, or executive) from gaining too much power.
Society, on the other hand, is not codified. Its rules and laws are of custom, and are not enforced by government. This is why the censorship laws have largely disappeared, and why the right to marry (a legal contract) is being disputed. These issues are social issues, not issues that government should be involved in. The government is founded on recourse to damages--whether to your person or to your property.
The confusion that Progressives have is that they are trying to get the government to control and dictate their social good. Their Common Good is their 'vision' of the common good whether you like it or not. Now, if you're a member of a church and the church makes a rule that you don't like, you can leave the church. We have only to look at centuries of European rulership to see the consequences of having the church be the government. Our nation was founded on religious freedom in order to avoid the misery of religious war. Progressives are gripped with a sort of religious fervor in their effort to mandate giving up individual rights for the common good. The Common Good is in the eye of the beholder and is not delineated. It's a sort of 'known' in the way that 'being good' in a religious sense is 'known.' But if you're in a Muslim country, being good might mean keeping your hair covered, praying 5 times a day, and being submissive to your husband.
Communitarianism is dependent on social pressure in order to function. That pressure can make you do things that you don't like, that you don't agree with, that violate your principles, because you feel shame or embarrassment or you might be ostracized.....
That slogan subsumes the individual into the greater whole and reinforces a mentality that finds comfort in totalitarianism.
If you work with a group do it as an individual, and always stay true to your individual values. Be careful not to lose yourself in the group.
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com...
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL....
Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from? Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?...
The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth....
DEMOCRATS AGAINST AGENDA 21
Pejeu
Has it ever occurred to you that truth doesn't need as much defending as lies
BardingTheBard
It doesn't need defending no... but it does benefit from mentioning out loud again.
Seeds need rain. Truths need voice.
FreeMason
Are you people insane?
FreeMason
Truth is the most in need of defending.
FreeMason
Not just "voice", because truth exposes the falsehoods of everyone with pride.
FreeMason
When standing in the light of truth we all are made humble.
FreeMason
Because of this, truth is the quickest to be executed, by anyone.
crimvelvet
Remember not all 'Socialists' believe in the same thing. Here is a real eye opener from a self-proclaimed socialist who works in the California state bureaucracy.
Pejeu
It should have dawned on me earlier I'm talking to a randroid...
OpenMindedRealist
No one in this thread has denied the fact that fraudulent banking is a bad thing, yet you speak as if that were the topic at hand. Maybe it is the language barrier.
Still off topic, but In my opinion you are talking about throwing out the baby with the bath water. I think NavyDoc pointed out that banking has been vital to expanding economies for centuries. The presence of fraud within the system does not make the system worthless.
That being said, I agree with the entirety of Crim's stance on banking.