Bernie Sanders Full Interview with Katie Couric - Real Answers to Real Questions

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Wookiep

As for the Fiat money system, I totally agree, it has to end. Which it may very well do on it's own soon enough. But let's say it doesn't implode on itself just yet and somehow stays afloat for a while longer. I don't think it's as easy as just bringing the whole thing to a total stop. That would be the same as having it all crash.

I think something as large and complicated as that would have to be dismantled over time and in pieces otherwise it would be no different than just having the whole economic system vanish tomorrow. Can you imagine the chaos that would result??? The economy is the most powerful force on this planet. Even Military Force must first have Economic Power to even exist. That isn't something that you just remove in one swipe without expecting complete and total collapse of society for many years.

This is a great conversation, I am glad to hear what people say about Sanders (and what he has to say about people).

No, I won't be voting for a socialist but, whomsoever draws attention to problems which need addressing deserves attention.



As far as fiat money goes, if you are truly against it (as I am), there is newfound hope. However, fiat money is state controlled, how could a socialist promote true capitalism, the only alternative to unbacked state issued currency?

Just throwing that out there hoping to hear a perspective that I haven't come across.

a reply to: greencmp

As far as fiat money goes, if you are truly against it (as I am), there is newfound hope. However, fiat money is state controlled, how could a socialist promote true capitalism, the only alternative to unbacked state issued currency?

In our capitalist economy we have now nothing backs our currency as it is so how would a socialist do any different? We went off the gold standard when Nixon was in office and the Federal Reserve has said nothing backs the dollars they are printing. It wouldn't hurt to take a glance at the Constitution because the state is supposed to control our currency. Ron Paul spent decades pointing out this fact but people just don't understand it.

the problem with the gold standard is it created feast/famine cycles. You think the poor in inner cities have it bad now....

No, it isn't perfect. Especially when the wolves are in the hen house. But none of us have lived a "hard life". Not unless you have been stranded in the middle of nowhere and had to figure out how to survive, anyway.

a reply to: buster2010

You are quite correct to point out that our constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to issue currency. The problem is just that (fed aside for the moment making this a problem since 1913 or so), pervasive artificial credit is only possible when there is a central issuer which does not back that currency with gold.

Or, more specifically, individual banks may create artificial credit but, simply go under when there is a run on their issuances. This is perfectly acceptable as long as that bank is a small part of the banking system. It is catastrophic when that "bank" is monolithic and state supported.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
the problem with the gold standard is it created feast/famine cycles. You think the poor in inner cities have it bad now....

No, it isn't perfect. Especially when the wolves are in the hen house. But none of us have lived a "hard life". Not unless you have been stranded in the middle of nowhere and had to figure out how to survive, anyway.

Not according to the Austrian school. Hayek received the Nobel prize for establishing the connection between artificial credit and the boom/bust cycle. Making money available artificially creates rampant malinvestment which is followed by the necessary and painful correction.

a reply to: mOjOm

So we have a politician telling the people what they want to hear. Thats unusual?

/sarcasm.

If he gets backed by either the DNC or GOP it will be the same as always. The system is to well managed for a good American with actual good intentions to sneak by the system. Sad ,but its reality.

No DNC or GOP candidate is going to fix the system because they broke the system by design to benefit them and the corporate oligopolies.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: mOjOm

So we have a politician telling the people what they want to hear. Thats unusual?

/sarcasm.

Depends on which "people" you're talking about. Clearly not everyone likes what he's saying.

I'm also confused at your comment. Would you consider voting for him if he was saying stuff you didn't want to hear???

If he gets backed by either the DNC or GOP it will be the same as always. The system is to well managed for a good American with actual good intentions to sneak by the system. Sad ,but its reality.

No DNC or GOP candidate is going to fix the system because they broke the system by design to benefit them and the corporate oligopolies.

Like someone earlier has already pointed out. He's an Independent but knows there is zero chance of winning by running under that ticket. Because of our broken system you have to run under one of the two parties to get enough exposure to even be taken seriously. Rand Paul is doing the same thing by running under the Rep. ticket even though he's a Libertarian. That really doesn't change anything though and you shouldn't get stuck on the labels.

If you've been paying attention you'd also know Sanders is the last person you can accuse of being with the corporate oligarchy either. In fact they are the ones he's against.

originally posted by: greencmp
As far as fiat money goes, if you are truly against it (as I am), there is newfound hope. However, fiat money is state controlled, how could a socialist promote true capitalism, the only alternative to unbacked state issued currency?

Just throwing that out there hoping to hear a perspective that I haven't come across.

True Capitalism would have no effect in fixing the problems with fiat money. The problem with fiat money is just that it has no true value backing it. It has an assumed value which is backed up basically by faith in the system. Capitalism will function the same whether that medium of exchange has Real Value or Assumed Value.

The type of system that is using that medium of exchange and the medium itself are two different things.

a reply to: greencmp

I have followed Mises for awhile. And I find the concepts that Mises puts up to be very appealing.

But for now its just marks on a chalkboard. Theory doesn't always make a good translation into reality. Otherwise, every system to date should be the harbinger of human utopia.

a reply to: mOjOm

I'm also confused at your comment. Would you consider voting for him if he was saying stuff you didn't want to hear???

I hope you understand the point and aren't really confused? Politicians generally tell you what you want to hear they just don't follow through with actions or voting records. The voting record ,actions , solutions , and implementation are far more important than any speech or interview by a politician.

He's an Independent but knows there is zero chance of winning by running under that ticket. Because of our broken system you have to run under one of the two parties to get enough exposure to even be taken seriously. Rand Paul is doing the same thing by running under the Rep. ticket even though he's a Libertarian. That really doesn't change anything though and you shouldn't get stuck on the labels.

Not stuck on any labels, The point is that the GOP and the DNC are both bought and paid for the Corporate Oligopolies. So despite his best intentions neither party will endorse him, unless he is a team player.

Ron Paul was a perfect example of this. He Truly ran on republican principles and had a voting record to match it. He voted for smaller gov't, less taxes, and more personal rights which are all true republican ideals, yet his own party labelled him as a whack job and radical.

Why? Because Both the DNC and the GOP want the same things: bigger gov't , more taxes/fees , and less personal rights, because it means more control for the Oligopolies who already control the gov't that controls the consumers and the market.

So if either party endorses Bernie he will not make any difference.If both party label Bernie a whack job or radical than he could have been the real deal and looking out for the consumer , but will not get elected.

I'm not saying I like this, but its pretty apparent how it works and doesn't give us much if any hope on changing anything.

Sadly the way the system is setup , its a catch 22.
1. If they get endorsed by the GOP or the DNC. They are likely already proven to be team players with the Oligopolies. Hence, same as always : bigger gov't , less personal rights, more taxes/fees, more oligopoly friendly regulations.

2. If they don't get endorsed by the GOP or the DNC: Then despite their good intentions, they have highly improbable chances to get elected. Hence, same as always : bigger gov't , less personal rights, more taxes/fees, more oligopoly friendly regulations.

The only way out of this cycle is if the majority of the people wake up and hold the DNC and the GOP to the heat, However, that is highly improbable as well. Political Team cheerleaders have a tendency to only concentrate on the other parties problems and not their own.

If you've been paying attention you'd also know Sanders is the last person you can accuse of being with the corporate oligarchy either. In fact they are the ones he's against.

So was Ron Paul and he had the record to back it up, but he got thrown to the wolves by his own party.

So was Obamanator, he got endorsed by the DNC and look how that turned out.

Ralph Nader, has an excellent record against the corporate oligarchy and look how his elections have gone.

Look it brings me no pleasure in pointing this out, but they have the system to well greased for someone to sneak through the cracks that actually wants to make a difference for the consumers.

I'm not saying to give up, but voting for a DNC or GOP elected candidate doesn't not appear to work and voting for a third party does not appear to work.

It might be time to look at other ways to infiltrate a corrupted system instead of trying to play the voting game which hasn't worked in the past. The same issue that exist today have existed for numerous decades and the winners and loosers hasn't changed.

1. Winners: Corporate Oligopolies.
2. Losers: middle class to lower class consumers.

Moral of the story: voting doesn't work and hasn't worked. So despite what Bernie tells you , it really isn't going to matter in a corrupted system.

Time to look at other non violent means to change the system , because voting in a corrupted system is clearly not the answer.

Sanders has been an independent for most of his career. He's running for the D's now because being under the R or D is just a political reality if you want to get elected. No different than Ron Paul in 2012 really.

Your delusional if you think voting is on the level. Its a scam. Billionaires and Trillionaires rule everything. We're all basically wage-slaves.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Your delusional if you think voting is on the level. Its a scam. Billionaires and Trillionaires rule everything. We're all basically wage-slaves.

Let me ask you this then. If the voting is all rigged, can you voting make anything worse?

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

I'm a Libertarian. It's in my signature.

Only someone without the lights on upstairs would be a Democrat or Republican after the last 14 years.

Libertarianism is just code word for ill vote republican if no one else runs.

Err...no...
Does anyone actually use political labels correctly? Seriously. It seems that virtually any time a political label is used, some erroneous statement is being made about it.

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: LDragonFire

I'm a Libertarian. It's in my signature.

Only someone without the lights on upstairs would be a Democrat or Republican after the last 14 years.

At least Scientology is a real religion. Libertarianism is just code word for ill vote republican if no one else runs.

It's just so easy for you to believe that. Too bad it's not true. Now you have to face reality.

I consider myself Independent/Libertarian (because they are one in the same in my mind) I have only voted Republican twice. Both times it was a vote AGAINST Obama.

So, there goes your theory.