New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Let's talk about money and where it comes from.

mark14

Council Member
Again -

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

So first what is Congress supposed to be but the representatives of the people.

That being so does anyone deny that the government is the source of money?

If so doesn't it release it into the economy making it the bank to end all banks? Isn't it the only bank that literally create it's own money?

What again does it do with the money it creates? It releases it (gives) into the economy. Is that sound practice? Well if it serves to make something of value for the people, to create "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", those things, when pursued wisely, reciprocally create the value ("regulate the Value thereof") for the money the government created, then yes.

But is it better banking practice to just give money for good works or to lend it? If you just give and ask nothing in return, for reinvestment let's say, isn't that poor regulation of monetary value? Banks require repayment with interest, generally waived in bankruptcy when the borrower goes broke. The federal government regulates that process too. When banks go broke the government bails them out. It's true that both happen all the time but we profit collectively and individually on other good investments and loan forgiveness is a last but necessary resort.

The "founding fathers" were by in large much more sophisticated than many members of Congress and the general public today. They were aware of the issues of how commerce is regulated along with the underlying absurdity as well and a put a hell of a lot in those few clauses about the monetary and taxation powers of government.

They knew the government is the goose that lays golden eggs, it should not be killed and that no other goose should be allowed.

They knew that a great deal of power had to be vested in the federal government, not least of which was control of the monetary supply and that taxation as means of regulating it as type of interest payment on the money it loans or gives is needed to keep us from simply becoming a nation of dissolute borrowers, either individual or corporate, even though ultimately the government does and should simply create money from nothing as appropriate to match the real wealth the people of America create. This is basically true of all governments.

What we have recently seen and are now living through is the end result of the progressive unbalancing of the financial system where a small number of banks and individual investors have created and accumulated money for themselves not through coinage but by creating credit bubbles and leaving the government to clean up the bankruptcies they create while walking away with the money they took in at the start. The process is repeated over and over again saddling governments with debt and accruing power to the elites.

It is all a house of cards or Monopoly money as I like to think of it. The wealthy have always spent a great deal of money, though usually not more than they have to, to convince the rest that this is all natural; in ancient times part of the divine right of kings, now the workings of the free market There is much that is unnatural about it, it isn't all that free, and it certainly doesn't just sort out when left to itself.

We were given the greatest form of government ever created by the founders of our nation. We should strive to have the intellect to deserve it.
 
Say you and I are neighbors. I have a dairy, you have a farm growing wheat. There is no money. You make wheat which I want to buy for bread. I make milk which you want to buy to drink and make cheese if you can. Before money, I would trade you my milk for your wheat. But I make way more milk than you can possibly drink and you grow way more wheat than I can possibly eat so we look for other people to trade with on the same type of barter system. Well, it looks like my surplus milk and your surplus wheat more than enough allows us both to get what we want from all the local merchants, so what do we do with the surplus?

Do you see that if you just add a concept of money into this equation the whole system gets really easy to manoever? I sell my milk to one guy who buys it all and he gives me money. You do the same thing. Then, we both take our money and buy what we want from all the other local and remote merchants as we see fit. Sometimes we don't spend it all so we keep the money as stored value for the future. The value of the money is based upon it's ability to function as an intermediary exchange mechanism for getting what I want today and also as a store of value for whatever I want in the future. The key is to link the amount of money in circulation to the amount of wealth created by dairy farmers and wheat farmers. How do you do that without making too much money or too little money?

That my friends is the 64 thousand dollar question.
 

mark14

Council Member
Say the country use to have 50% farmers because that's the number of people needed to provide food. From the relatively small surpluses created they fed the other half and made some money to buy goods with which to improve their lives. Jefferson loved that vision. Innovation improved farming to where a it only took only a few percent of the people to provide food and allowed the takeover by factory farms leaving the other 48% who used to farm in need of money and employment. But the 2% don't want to give their now large surpluses away, they actually want the government to give them subsidies instead, but they can't sell it if the rest is beggared and the funny thing is the rest might still provide useful functions for the wealthy 2% like being their servants, working like slaves in the remaining farm jobs, building them fancy yachts and cars, etc. But even more fascinating is that freed up from farming they also create fantastic communications, art, literature, entertainment and oh the wonder of life extending health care; vaccinations so we don't die, teams to provide life extending and health saving surgeries, therapies for otherwise fatal diseases many costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars that no one, I repeat no one can pay for because no single person has money enough to do the basic research and create the applications that creates these wonders any more than any one person could have sent an astronaut to the moon.

So of course those who have taken over the farming and so many other essential industries of every kind should return a generous share to the benefit of all which they need and partake of as much as the next and when it is returned to both the geniuses who develop technologies as well the people who clean the operating rooms where we go for our stents and bypasses or isolation rooms where bone marrow transplants are routinely performed, who collectively as yet still make the world work, it will be returned back to us all including the rich because everyone must eat and needs a roof over their head and need ways to get around which has becoming increasingly easier to provide even as the wealth derived from doing so has become more monopolized. We give them subsidies and have also created food stamps to enrich the corporate farmers but they feel no responsibility to give any of the money back. We give oil companies energy tax credits and provide heating assistance that goes into the pockets of the oil companies but they feel no responsibility to give any of it back. We subsidize pharmaceutical companies with Medicaid and Medicare D but they feel no responsibility to give any of it back. The can give it back or not give it back but what government can not do is refuse to support the innovations that enrich everyone whether they pay their share or not because we are all interconnected and government's role to print and distribute (or redistribute) money for the benefit of all is enumerated in what I posted above.
 

mark14

Council Member
Say the country use to have 50% farmers because that's the number of people needed to provide food. From the relatively small surpluses created they fed the other half and made some money to buy goods with which to improve their lives. Jefferson loved that vision. Innovation improved farming to where a it only took only a few percent of the people to provide food and allowed the takeover by factory farms leaving the other 48% who used to farm in need of money and employment. But the 2% don't want to give their now large surpluses away, they actually want the government to give them subsidies instead, but they can't sell it if the rest is beggared and the funny thing is the rest might still provide useful functions for the wealthy 2% like being their servants, working like slaves in the remaining farm jobs, building them fancy yachts and cars, etc. But even more fascinating is that freed up from farming they also create fantastic communications, art, literature, entertainment and oh the wonder of life extending health care; vaccinations so we don't die, teams to provide life extending and health saving surgeries, therapies for otherwise fatal diseases many costing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars that no one, I repeat no one can pay for because no single person has money enough to do the basic research and create the applications that creates these wonders any more than any one person could have sent an astronaut to the moon.

So of course those who have taken over the farming and so many other essential industries of every kind should return a generous share to the benefit of all which they need and partake of as much as the next and when it is returned to both the geniuses who develop technologies as well the people who clean the operating rooms where we go for our stents and bypasses or isolation rooms where bone marrow transplants are routinely performed, who collectively as yet still make the world work, it will be returned back to us all including the rich because everyone must eat and needs a roof over their head and need ways to get around which has becoming increasingly easier to provide even as the wealth derived from doing so has become more monopolized. We give them subsidies and have also created food stamps to enrich the corporate farmers but they feel no responsibility to give any of the money back. We give oil companies energy tax credits and provide heating assistance that goes into the pockets of the oil companies but they feel no responsibility to give any of it back. We subsidize pharmaceutical companies with Medicaid and Medicare D but they feel no responsibility to give any of it back. The can give it back or not give it back but what government can not do is refuse to support the innovations that enrich everyone whether they pay their share or not because we are all interconnected and government's role to print and distribute (or redistribute) money for the benefit of all is enumerated in what I posted above.
 
Soppy date, right lets start the day, I am off walking in the rain with hounds and then back to getting the house smiling for Christmas. Later log0008. have fun and don't let the buggers get the better of you :)
 
OK. So in our little story about the farmers and their surplus, let's add in the folks that live in the cities. They are the consumers of the farmers surplus goods and in return, they manufacture things which the farmers buy. The government controls the money system as you stated and referenced in order to facilitate all these exchanges and provide a sound monetary system for trade internally and more importantly, externally. As all the goods and services get created, the banker must keep adding money to the pool to reflect the new activities and creation of value. If he makes too few dollars then the competition for those dollars is high and the banker charges you more for each dollar. If he makes too few dollars then the opposite occurs. Now the banker could do this for free but only if somebody else paid his wages and costs (the government via taxation). But man has always fixed this privately through banks and that is exactly what ends up happening. A bank is set up somewhere to help the exchanges and store surplus money safely. Well a bank needs to make money too and the nation wants more capital to make investments in really big things. So, the bank makes loans based upon reserves and charges interest. Where does he get the new money for the loan? Federal reserve.
 

mark14

Council Member
But Ron Paul says the Federal Reserve is evil and we should end it's option to coin money and just use gold which the banks are also quite capable of controlling and everything will just naturally sort out. The problem that occurred is however that the Federal Reserve, an agency of intermediate status part private and part public federal agency, and other agencies abrogated their responsibilities and allowed the investment banks to coin their own money in the form of unregulated "innovative" vehicles of credit like collateral debt obligations and credit default swaps which should never have been allowed to build up the level of leverage that they did but we had the the ideologically driven libertarians like Alan Greenspan, who share Paul's zealotry for "free markets", running the show who let lobbyist and hacks like Phil Graham rewrite the legislation to remove regulations and starved and set the tone for what enforcement agencies there were to ignore existing regulations thus creating the financial crisis and collapse which of course the government, as the only source of "real money", had to bail out. Now the banks have reconsolidated larger than ever and are back to the old games with their armies of lobbyist and hacks like Rupert Murdoch's Fox news propagandizing to people that government supervision and participation is the problem rather than the solution. I love the oft repeated dubious quote attribute to Franklin "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" when in fact is the corporate "people" who learned they could print money but that of course occurred long before our country was even established. Jefferson actually did have things to say about this.

Private Banks (Quotation)

Quotation: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Variations:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."
"The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation

I was surfing the web to find the quote on money and came across this chat site I hadn't seen before which gives an interesting take on the history of money and banking, much of which I agree with, although it is a bit heavy about the modern influence of the Rothschilds and inaccurate about the secrecy with which the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Following and reading the link is faster than listening though they are complimentary. http://www.xat.org/ Enjoy
 
Where does money come from??? According to my kids. It falls off the tree in the backyard and in early December mom and dad rake it up and go Christmas shopping.....

Sorry about butting in on the thread but sometimes you just gotta lighten up
 
The fed had nothing to do with creating those instruments. That was for the regulators who were told a pack of lies by quants that said they had created mathematical models that basically eliminated risk. This is what drove all otherwise sane people to believe that you could leverage yourself to the hilt if only you could spread the risk broadly enough to make it seem impossible to lose it all. What drove these crazy notions? Ratings and the pay off of those ratings firms along with the rise in loans that made no sense to the orginating lender without a secondary market to dump them on, ie. Wall street. Remember our little story about the dairy farmer and the wheat farmer? They actually made something. What screwed it all up is that banking no longer focused on those clients, they started making billions betting with each other and created no value of their own. This is how you end up throwing out the money lenders...been going on for thousands of years.
 

mark14

Council Member
Sure but the creators of those instruments were exempted from reserve requirements and when various advocates came and explained to Alan Greenspan over and over again that they were creating dangerous levels of leverage and the Federal Reserve needed to act he said they are too complicated for me to understand so let the wisdom of the free market take care of it. Basically he was just another anti-government Reaganite allowed to be in control of government and what's worse served as a tool of the most wealthy private interests.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/06/greenspan_summers_and_why_the_economy_is_so_out_of/
http://michael-hudson.com/2011/04/greenspan-returns-to-de-regulation/
http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-greenspan-was-a-libertarian-to-the-crony-capitalists-2011-12
 
if your point is that someone should have known better then you are right. The issue is that no one was tasked with regulating it..that is what Warren set out to do. if you like this topic, read "all the devils are here". I just finished it, amazing book, you will like it. No one is spared. Personally, I think Greenspan should be pilloried for his inaction.
 

mark14

Council Member
Speaking of cows someone once posted this story.

Ken Lay owns a cow that is dying so he says he is going to hold a raffle for a cow worth $1,000 and sells a thousand tickets at $10 each. Someone wins but the cow dies so he offers the the winner the dead cow so the winner say keep your damned cow, give me the $1,000. So Ken Lay gives him the money and keeps the dead cow and the $9,000. Everyone is satisfied with having been treated fairly, the losers of the lottery who had their chance to win, the winner of the dead cow and $1,000 and most of all Ken Lay. I don't know what it means but enjoyed the story.
 

Lukey

Senator
Money does not "serve to make something of value for the people." The people create stores of value through their enterprise. Money just serves as a medium to "score" these stores of value. When the government issues too much money it just changes the number of unit of a currency that is scored against each store of value. Is gold worth more now than when it was worth $35 in 1933? Nope:

http://mises.org/daily/3086
 
Top