Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 15 trillion in debt ? Why should we pay it back, we earned it !

Posted 6 years ago on March 23, 2012, 10:18 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Every penny of the debt was earned. Why pay it back ? That makes no sense.

We built roads and schools , and paid teachers, police officers, military personell. Every penny spent was earned , why pay it back?

What kind of dumb system is that ?

Seriously people, we earned it , why pay it back !



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

The question of paying it back is academic. We can't pay back Federal Reserve Notes with more Federal Reserve Notes. The only practical solution is for the US Government to declare a new form of currency, the United States Note, as new legal tender that it will own to pay back the Fed's loaned currency that it owns -- the Federal Reserve Note -- commonly known as the US Dollar.

The US Government made a tremendous mistake in allowing the Central Bank, aka the Fed, to come into existence in 1913. From that point forward, perpetual and never-ending debt was guaranteed. That debt is rolled over each year and is now treated as the general money supply, while American taxpayers can do nothing more than attempt to pay the interest on that debt (the principle is never touched). At some point, the payment on the interest of this massive debt becomes impossible, because Americans will not have enough money, even if they were taxed at 100% of income, to meet the interest requirements. At this point, America will default on the National debt, and the economy will collapse as debt creditors, both foreign and domestic, will demand repayment that can't be made.

The current system of never-ending and ever-increasing debt is unsustainable.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Before we had a central bank (even during our free banking era) the US borrowed money from other countries. We didn't have anything like treasury bonds, but we still borrowed from other countries. Between the depression/WWII era and the 1970's we managed to get our public debt down to nearly 30% of GNP (today it's about 106%). Obviously this success was mostly due to economic growth and inflation (as opposed to actually paying down the principle on our debt).

Right now the best thing we could do is reduce spending where it has the least impact on our domestic economy (like overseas military spending, to the extent possible), normalize tax rates on upper earners, and maybe start thinking about a value added tax (which we need anyway if we want to still have a manufacturing sector in the long term).

Also, I still think Keynesian economists may have a point, our stimulus may have been too small, and in any case, the money was spent in less than ideal ways. The fact is if we want to do something about debt (in terms of debt to GNP ratio, which is really the most important figure) the most effective way to do that is increase our GNP.

For example, our current GNP is about $14.7 trillion (our debt, about $15.6 trillion). If we were growing at 5% per year, our GNP would be nearly $19 trillion in just five years. Growing at just 3%, our GNP will be around $17 trillion in five years. Growing at 7%, our GNP would be over $20 trillion in five years. Of course if we continue adding to our debt at current levels, even at 7% growth, lowering our debt to GNP ratio would be nearly impossible. However, if unemployment levels normalized, we pull out of Afghanistan, we will spend considerably less money. We also have to keep in mind, with increased GNP comes increased tax receipts. So if we had a stimulus (remember, stimulus spending doesn't need to make government larger, assuming it's spent on things like infrastructure projects), and we made sure that government grew at a rate much slower than the economy in general, we can do this in 5 to 7 years.

Of course calculating the multiplier on public stimulus spending is notoriously difficult. The estimates tend to be highly controversial, and of course it depends on how you view the multiplier. If you limit the analysis to the impact of spending over the short run, then the multiplier is anywhere between .85 and 1.6 (depending on whose numbers you believe), if you take a longer range view, the number can be higher. However, there are ways we could potentially maximize the multiplier, and even offset the impact of a stimulus on currency value.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

We cannot work our way out of the existing system as you have advocated. You are advocating applying patches to try to sustain that which is ultimately unsustainable. The only rational approach is to completely replace our deeply flawed interest-bearing debt-based system with a monetary supply provided by the US Government (not the Fed) that circulates currency interest free. This is the approach that was used by the early American colonies, and it worked remarkably well, until the European Bankers found out about it and convinced King George III to require the colonies to remove it and only use England's currency. This act, and it's subsequent severe impact on the colonial economy, was the primary reason for the American Revolution.

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Here's a quick overview of the actual history:

Early American currency went through several stages of development in the colonial and post-Revolutionary history of the United States. Because few coins were minted in the thirteen colonies that became the United States in 1776, foreign coins like the Spanish dollar were widely circulated. Colonial governments sometimes issued paper money to facilitate economic activity. The British Parliament passed Currency Acts in 1751, 1764, and 1773 that regulated colonial paper money.

During the American Revolution, the colonies became independent states; freed from British monetary regulations, they issued paper money to pay for military expenses. The Continental Congress also issued paper money during the Revolution, known as Continental currency, to fund the war effort. Both state and Continental currency depreciated rapidly, becoming practically worthless by the end of the war.

To address these and other problems, the United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, denied individual states the right to coin and print money. The First Bank of the United States, chartered in 1791, and the Coinage Act of 1792, began the era of a national American currency.


Here's another great link to a Wiki article that lists all US recessions (and related data):


The important thing to look at is the severity and frequency of these recessions, and how they correspond to different periods in our history. For instance, look at the severity and frequency of recessions during our free banking era, also look at the period before we created a central bank.

Indeed, it's very easy to see (by looking at the "real" data) that our post WWII economy has been much more stable than any other period in our history. This should bode well for the general concept of a central bank, and New Deal regulation, but unfortunately the popular mantra these days is based on a completely ahistorical, revisionist view of American history (and this is true on both sides of the political aisle).

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Read chapter 3 of this book (actually, do yourself a favor and read the whole book):


I can't type it all out, and anything less than the whole chapter would do it and this debate a disservice. In short, everything was going very well for the colonies economically until Ben Franklin went to England in 1764. The British were dumbfounded as to how the colonies were doing so well and Britain so poorly. Franklin made the mistake of telling King George III

" We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps"

After hearing this, also in 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliment to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money.

Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England.

Private Banks should not issue the nation's money supply as debt instruments owed to them. The Government should issue it's own money.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Might I suggest before reading novels by propagandists, you receive formal training in American history (that means taking a college course in early American history).

Between 60% and 75% of immigrants into the English Colonies were indentured servants. Until the mid 1600s, even immigrants of African origin usually came to the Americas as indentured servants. America’s indentured servants came from a variety of sources. Some volunteered to escape poverty. Some were shipped to America as punishment for not paying debts or for being chronic beggars or vagrants.


Sure, we put them to work, as indentured servants, and then ultimately (in the case of African Americans) slaves. Hint: viewing this as some sort of golden era is at best ignorance of the history, at worse (assuming a decent knowledge of the history) mental illness.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Might I suggest that before you dismiss something as a "novel" (which it isn't) by a "propagandist" (which Ms. Brown isn't), that you actually read the book before making foolish accusations? "Web of Debt" is a thoroughly-researched and well-documented history of how central banking originated in the late 1600s and early 1700s, and how it spread from Europe to the Americas. A look at her source references, which she quotes from abundantly, are by well-respected authors, and many of the quotes are made directly from the Congressional record.

The author is a trained litigating attorney experienced in researching factual, empirical evidence in support of her claims.

But your obvious bias is so severe, and your self-assurance that what the educational system has provided cannot be questioned as anything but factual, proves that your ability to read the book with an open mind is doubtful at best, and more likely impossible at worst.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I'm also a trained attorney, now working towards a grad degree in molecular biology .... so I don't have time to read every book on earth (therefore, I have to be selective, and this junk doesn't pass through my "worth a shit" filter).

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Then I guess our interchange has concluded. Good luck with your future endeavors.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Underdog and francismjenkins, thanks for joining this discussion. You are both highly valued ..


[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

The money printed and spent by government should not be considered debt. That money is buying production and we the people pay for that money with our labor. The money should than simply expire when we the people spend it on the production we created to begin with. There is no debt. But simply an unlimited supply of printed money paid to " we the people for our labor. The harder we work the more productive we are. Print money day and night and work the people as much as they desire.

I know it all sounds to simple, but it works. And no debt is created.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Well, we exchange debt (treasury notes, not exactly money, but rather a claim on money) for "other peoples" money, but actually most of our debt is owed to ourselves (and people should understand this). I mean, sure, we could always eliminate all the debt our treasury owes to the social security administration (as an example), but that's the retirement money of most Americans. Moreover, if we told all our foreign creditors to go screw themselves, our dollar would become worthless. That might be fine if we had a closed economy, where we didn't need to import anything, but we don't. Inflation would skyrocket, and it would be economic disaster of a magnitude that we probably wouldn't be able to recover from. So this is not an idea that any serious policy maker would ever consider.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

May I ask one question.

True or false.

If the government printed out enough money to pay off all foreign debt, would the total debt change or stay the same ?

USA has 15 trillion if they pay off 2 trillion to foreign debt by printing it domestically , the total debt would now still be15 trillion. Or am I doing this wrong ?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Here's an easier one.

Print enough money and pay off all the foreign debt. This will save USA interest and let the foreigners circulate their money amongst the economy where it belongs. Inflation may occur momentarily in the form of a boom, and than level off again.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

There would be no boom, because we'd have to print something like $6 or 7 trillion, almost doubling the money (in circulation) supply. The dollar would collapse, it would probably cause a domino effect (the world would rapidly move away from denominating trade in dollars, flooding the market with yet more dollars), starting an inflationary spiral.

If we had a stable domestic fuel supply (that could completely replace foreign oil), maybe we'd have a better chance of pulling it off, but unfortunately we don't. If we got rid of the fed, we'd still have to pay our foreign debts (even though getting rid of the fed would itself probably cause a dollar collapse).

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Yes there would be a boom. Adding 6 or 7 trillion to the economy would be a huge stimulus package.

Inflation is s scare tactic. Prices go up/ wages go up.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

It would not be adding 6 or 7 trillion dollars to the economy.

The equation of exchange: MV=PQ

M = money in circulation, V = the velocity of money, P = the price level, and Q = the index of real expenditures (on newly produced goods and services)

There is very little controversy among economists with respect to this basic formula. As you can see, there's two sides to this equation. You have money supply and the frequency money changes hands on one side, and inflation/the total value of all goods and services, on the other. When one side of the equation is distorted, it exerts a proportional change to the other side of the equation.

In other words, if we abruptly increased the supply of money in circulation, one of three things must happen. Either the velocity of money shrinks, inflation rises, or the total value of goods and services in our economy rises (or some combination thereof). The problem is increasing money supply will have its most immediate impact on inflation.

Inflation is not a scare tactic, we understand the consequences of hyper-inflation very well (we have a wealth of data concerning this issue). Inflation at 3, 4, or maybe even 5%, isn't necessarily all that bad (and it can even be good). But much higher than that ... and you start having serious problems.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Well as I mentioned, printing money to pay off the foreign portion of debt will no increase the debt. So if we print in small increments to pay off 2 trillion to china , what will they do with it? It will be reinvested somewhere creating jobs .. Right ? And at no cost to the USA tax payer.

Unless there are rules preventing USA from canceling bonds? It's not the same as defaulting on a loan. China will be paid freshly printed cash.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Well, we already do this, but according to the schedule of the bonds. People should not be freaking out about the $2 trillion we owe to China. The only reason why China purchased so many of our bonds is to keep the value of its own currency suppressed. It has nothing to do with begging China to lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts, they buy our bonds because it's in their self interest (and for no other reason).

What we should instead be worrying about is our declining manufacturing sector, our dysfunctional trade policy, over reliance on foreign sources of energy, etc. However, we don't need to destroy the American dollar to effectively deal with these problems. It's one thing to say our currency should be a little bit weaker (there are some valid arguments in favor of a weaker dollar), but we simply cannot pursue a policy that would completely destroy our currency. That would be economic suicide.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Let me combine a couple thoughts.

The debt / GNP ratio, .. would inflation increase our GNP value and thus change the ratio?

and .. okay , so we can buy off our bonds owed to foreign country .. with fed printing cash .. ?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I mean, technically, yes ... we could do that. Would it destroy the value of our currency for years (probably a decade or so), almost certainly.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

it may destroy the value of the currency but it would boost the value of the GNP ...yes ?

just one more thing , if our currency drops in value .. would that not also encourage buying domestic ? and increase jobs ? I mean wouldn't foreigners be shopping usa if suddenly foreign dollars soar in value ?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Yes and yes, but it's quality of life we'd need to be concerned about. We will have to rely on domestic "everything" (because we won't be able to import anything). I can see the appeal of that idea ... but ruining the dollar is by far the least ideal way to accomplish this goal.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

well .. we improve the debt/ GNP ratio, we get our jobs back , and we don't shop overseas for a while .. is it two out of three or three for three !

thanks for your correspondence

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Exactly, the system was not well thought out / planned. It's like taxing your employees in order to pay them duh ! They worked for it.




[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

I take it you are a Ron Paul fan ! Congrats on seeing the light!!!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

I am not a fan of anyone. I am an advocate of sanity. If Paul advocates nationalization or abolishment of the Fed, I agree. But I do not worship at his feet as some are inclined to do.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 6 years ago

I did not use the word worship - you did.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

There may be miscommunication here. I did not mean to imply that you personally are a Paul "worshiper", only that there are a lot of people who do follow him as if his ideas and opinions are sacrosanct. I think that if he were ever elected Prez, he would probably be an ineffective one because idealism, though greatly to be admired, doesn't mesh well with the filthy dirty world of the DC political machine. This, imo, is what happened to Obama. He came in with a lot of idealistic ideas for "Change", then had his face shoved firmly into the p.o.s. known as Congress.

Bottom Line: it doesn't matter if the Prez is the greatest living being the planet has ever produced. Congress will defeat any and all things good because Congress isn't really interested in what is best for We The People. They are only interested in what is best for We The Power-Elite.

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

academic? So you think the govt is splitting its hairs to answer an 'academic' question? You really need a Economics 101 class

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

It is academic, or moot, because the national debt can never be paid off using conventional US dollars, aka Fed Reserve Notes.

Think of it this way. Can you dig your way out of a hole by digging a deeper hole? Every dollar in circulation is debt, because it has been loaned to the government by the Fed. Every dollar in circulation is the property of the Federal Reserve, hence the name Federal Reserve Note. When the US Government borrows money from the Fed, it exchanges Treasury Notes, Bills, and Bonds (Government I.O.U.s) in exchange for the Fed's Federal Reserve Notes. To pay off those I.O.U.s, Uncle Sam has only two options -- (1) use taxpayer money to return the Fed's property to it in order to cancel the I.O.U.s or (2) borrow more money to pay off the I.O.U.s. The first option is impossible because the National debt is so large that taxpayers could not possibly provide enough tax money to ever retire both principle and interest (as it is now, taxpayer money only goes to servicing the interest; the principle is not touched). The second option is an exercise in insanity, in that more I.O.U.s would have to be exchanged to replace previous I.O.U.s, so there is no net difference. Additionally, those dollars in principle must be given back to the Fed with MORE dollars in interest than were borrowed. And where do those additional FRNs come from?

So how is using more debt to pay off debt getting you anywhere?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

something doesn't add up about this.. ?

you say every dollar has been loaned by the fed to the government.. but than you say it exchanges bonds and treasury notes for this debt ..

It's as if the government is actually " buying money from the fed ? than it is not really a loan..?

and than you say option 2. borrow money to pay off the loan ? this is where I ask .. why borrow the money ? from china in bonds or whatever .. simply leave the debt with the fed directly with the fed .. this will leave the money collected in bonds circulating within the economy rather than tied up in bonds?

It just seems we should loan from the fed to pay off the bond .. and in reality it would not change how much we owe . [whether to china or the fed] but it will increase the amount of money in circulation ..

sorry if this is not clear ..

yes the increase would cause inflation , but inflation would increase the value of GNP , while at the same time our debt would remain the same .. but the debt / GNP ratio would be altered in our favor..

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Ok, I know you are sincere in wanting to understand this. The Fed is not going to just give the US government their FRNs. The Fed demands the bonds (IOUs) in exchange for loaning the Government their FRNs. If you go to a bank to get money to buy a car, you have to sign a promissory note to repay, right? That's what the bond is. The government is saying, ok, we'll give you our promissary notes (bonds) worth X millions plus requirement to repay principle plus interest, and you'll loan us X millions of FRNs. The government is theoretically obligated by law to return the FRNs to the Fed, plus additional FRNs as interest payment, in satisfaction of the debt obligation.

The government is not "buying money from the Fed". That would require the government use FRNs to purchase FRNs, something which makes no sense, since they would already have the FRNs they wish to have.

It makes no difference who holds the bonds, whether it is the Fed, China, or average American citizen. The bond is a promise to repay. It is not actual money (FRN), but represents future value since the only way to dissolve the debt obligation is for FRNs to be repayed for the value of the bonds (plus interest of course).

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

okay, yes I am sincere ..and thanks for all the patience with this .. take a breath if need be..

If the bond is a promise to pay .. okay I think I got that ..

So the government either promises to pay the fed , or china, or an citizen .. all depending on who borrows the government the money .. right ?

But the difference I see is that when we borrow from the fed , we are not tying up actual money .. it is all new money , but when we borrow from china , that is real money that has already been created and placed into the economy..[ I think ].. so that money from china should stay in the economy so it can trickle back to the government and pay back the fed , but when it is used in a bonded situation .. it is literally taken out of any chance of being returned to pay back the fed .. do you follow ?

If we borrowed everything from the fed .. paid off all foreign bond , and local bonds for that matter .. and only used the fed for loans , than all the foreign bonds would be forced back into circulation ... so far so good .. and this doesnt change the national debt .. it just places all debt with the fed and none anywhere else .. consolidating perhaps this could be called ..

The advantage to consolidating all date to the fed .. again would mean all other debt would be paid off and those debt holders [ bond holders ] would now have trillions of dollars to spend within the economy .. do you see my point .. though I may be wrong but to give china all their money back .. would be beneficial to the world economy .. something about suppressing their own currency .. but at the same time it was removing money from circulation .. not good ..

If I am right , than I think we have a chance to set things straight again .. for a little while ..

unless the money we borrowed from china was printed out of a china fed and thin air .. than giving it back to them it would just dissolve ..?

What happens to the money paid back to the federal reserve ? does it just dissolve ?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

"So the government either promises to pay the fed , or china, or an citizen .. all depending on who borrows the government the money .. right ?"

Correction: "depending on who **loans** the government the money

"when we borrow from the fed...it is all new money"

well, yes and no. It could be new money, or it might be pre-existing money that the Fed has at its disposal from whatever resources it may have at the time of the transaction.

"when we borrow from china, that is real money"

this is where things can get complicated. China undoubedly holds bonds, but international trade also enters the picture. We have had a trade imbalance, in their favor, for many years now with China. Goods represent money, so if a lot of dollars are off-shored to China as payment for our purchasing their stuff, while the reverse situation is not true, that represents a large drain of dollars within our economy that leaves the country, without a corresponding inflow of their money (remember, all international currencies are convertible at exchange rates that vary daily). So China can be sitting on a huge pile of our money (well, theirs that came from ours) that they can use to turn around and purchase our assets ( whether real, or corporate, or purely financial). To regain ownership, we would have to purchase those assets back. But the Public sector (Government) can't do that very easily, because the Government is broke (the Private sector can buy back more easily if they so chose). So any asset that we would like back someday that they currently own represents a future obligation for us, if we so chose, and this represents a future "debt" in the sense that it will be owed to them (required to them) from funds in our possession that could be used for other things.

"...that money from china should stay in the economy..."

remember, we live in a global economy. The money may or may not be in our economy. Money is no respecter of borders. It just flows all around the world based on market conditions, supply/demand, etc. so it is not that simple to say that it should "stay in the (our) economy". Market conditions will determine this.

"when it is used in a bonded situation .. it is literally taken out of any chance of being returned to pay back the fed"

A bond is a bond. A debt obligation is a debt obligation. Money must be paid at some point to whoever holds the bond to remove the debt obligation.

"If we borrowed everything from the fed --->> . . . <<--- consolidating perhaps this could be called"

Even if this could be theoretically accomplished, it couldn't last for long. If China, for example, was paid off, then they would have even MORE funds at their disposal to turn around and buy more bonds with on the open market. The only way for what you are suggesting to occur is for regulations to be passed forbidding foreign investment by China, for example, and to close ourselves off from the world economy. In the global economy, this would be economic suicide.

"What happens to the money paid back to the federal reserve ? does it just dissolve ?"

The fed can do whatever it wants with it. It is their property to use as it pleases. The Fed is likely to consult with the Treasury department, Congress, the Prez, etc. as to what to do with a surplus of funds, but they are under no legal obligation to do what the Government wishes. In practice, they probably would try, but they are not required to do so as they are not a part of the Federal govenment.


After reviewing and commenting on a number of your questions, it seems to me that you might benefit from some introductory macroeconomics information available either on-line or in book form. There is an abundance of information out there, and I'm sure you could find something appropriate to your current level of understanding. Ultimately, I think those sources can probably do a better job of explaining things to you than I can.

I will still try to answer your questions as best I can, but an "official" source would probably serve you better.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

well thanks .. were getting somewhere now ..

yes , I understand the trade imbalance .[ thanks to walmart ]

one point I would like to emphasize on ..

this is difficult:

When a small business in town makes a profit , we hope the profit will be respent around town .. In some cases the profit originated as a loan , and is needed to circulate back to the loanee in order to repay that loan. But if the profit does not recirculate than the loanee has no way of repaying his loan..

Now this is the same with the trade imbalance .. China has a surplus of profit that originated as a loan in America .. and that profit needs recicurlation .. but if China buys bonds with that profit , it can not recirculate and in fact increases the debt.. [ the original loan may have been government loan paid out to citizens and ended up as china profit. ]

Yes regulations need adjusting ... I see no reason why we should allow to tie up " economy money in government bonds . It just takes money out of the " cycle " of loan/ repayment.

And the idea of the fed having the ability to print money and is not a government entity .. is just wrong .

All money that government loans should be new , freshly printed money . And not existing money , because again that destroys the previous repayment cycle .. causing infinite/perpetual debt.

well thanks underdog,

The basic fundamentals are what we need to look at ..they hold the key .

I also understand the global economy .. and if china was paid back its trillions .. what/where would they spend it ....but whereever it may be it would be adding a couple trillion to the economy ..is this a valid point ? If we paid off the china bonds with fed bonds .. we would still have the same amount of debt , but the economy would see an increase of china cash. [ and while we are at it pay off all other non federal bonds ]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

And the idea of the fed having the ability to print money and is not a government entity .. is just wrong .

THAT is the light bulb of enlightment that needs to go off in the minds of every adult American. But how to turn on the switch? That's the problem.

Also please remember that bonds must be paid back with interest. So, in the theoretical scenario that you have proposed of paying off China with 2 trillion, we would also have to throw in whatever interest was due (millions? billions?). If we pay China the 2+ trillionish, that is a big wad of dough that has left our economy and went to them, so it's not really adding anything to our economy. It is just retiring a debt obligation.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Thanks underdog, I've been piecing this together.

I understand if we pay china the 2+ trillionish we would also be paying the interest .. but we wouldn't really be paying it from our economy directly .. but rather have the fed print it out .. this way , the size of our debt obligation would remain the same.. but the advantage would be china now has 2 + trillion to spend on the economy.. which would certainly cause the stock market to jump , and increase the value of our GNP. with the value of the GNP going up and our tax debt remaining the same , it would ease the burden on the tax payer .. this makes inflation look like a good thing .. and we can use the system against the fed and in our favor .. because as the value of GNP goes up the portion in ratio of what we would owe the fed goes down .. sound clever ?

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

And you want to know what's wrong, for starters -all money is not debt.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Sorry little Troll, I won't come out to play anymore. Didn't I already tell you this? Why do you persist? Crawl back to the darkness from which you came.

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

and you can go watch zeitgeist videos and discuss with other Zeitards how an RBE will change the word and shit.. dumbass

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

You clearly don't understand what the debt entails, who we owe it to and also the whole concept of fiat currency. So before trying to tell me, please get your facts right. Might I suggest you read Mankiw's book on introductory macroeconomics. Then may be we can talk.

You question "So how is using more debt to pay off debt getting you anywhere?" will be easily answered if you read that book.

Looks like the entire population needs understanding of basic economics. Otherwise, you guys seem to see a conspiracy almost everywhere.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Thank you for providing a book suggestion for my benefit. In exchange, please watch these two short videos and tell me whether or not you believe they are economically flawed or conceptually bogus:



[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Oh i get it now, you have learnt all your 'economics' from Zeitgeist. I see.. Well actually I have watched both of these videos during undergrad and my views about them (and particularly Zeitgeist) hasn't changed - they are crap. And I don't 'believe' that they are academically flawed and bogus, I know they are.

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

I have not learned all my economics from Zeitgeist. Those are just two short vids that provide a very high-level overview of the concept of Fractional Reserve Banking. I gather you approve of FRB, and it's inherently inflationary practice.

So please enlighten us as to your wisdom and knowledge of how these basic practices as presented are flawed, bogus, crap.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

i could do that but its been already done or you could just buy any book on macroecon and these would be explained. explaining all of these properly would take a very dozen pages of text and some figures, and i barely get enough time to sleep let alone write a mini econ book. Any econ student would/should be able to explain. So my advice, go to amazon and order the book. This has been my standard advice to all Zietards who have asked to explain this. Its like explaining all of newton's laws, hence read a book

[-] 5 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Really? Not even the slightest bit of demonstration of your obvious superiority of knowledge over us common herd? You spend who-knows-how-much time on these forums in defense of Wall Street and can't take the time for a short display of your brilliance?

But that's ok. I'll try to get a copy of your recommended prose and see if it deviates in any way from other Macro Econ texts I've read. You see, I am familiar with the standard stuff. I am familiar with Production-Possibility Frontier, Supply/Demand Curves and Market Equilibrium, various measurements of Output/Income such as GDP, Real GDP, NDP, CPI, PPI, etc., measurements of Inflation and Unemployment, Aggregate Spending and the Keynesian Equilibrium, GDP Gap and various multipliers, various types of fiscal policy, how to determine the equilibrium price and output level, how the national debt burden impacts the economy long-term, the Classical Macro Theory and Keynesian Theory, the various effects of taxes on income (e.g. Tax Multiplier), various Money and Banking terms including types such as Commodity, Fiat, and Money Supply categories (M1, M2, M3)., Phillips Curve Trade-Off, Stagflation, Hyper-inflation, etc, etc, etc,......This is all standard textbook stuff. 

Funny how all that knowledge didn't help Greenspan or Bernanke predict and deal with the dot-com and housing bubbles/bursts. Couldn't possibly be true that somebody actually benefitted from that.

Just so you know, I went through the system too. I am a graduate of the University of Miami from the ancient times of 1977. I went through the system and came out Magna Cum Laude. I entered the workforce and slaved away for almost 30 years before taking early retirement at 53. 

Here is what is wrong with the collegiate system. It consists of standardized texts, standardized tests, standardized curriculums, and produces a standardized output of standardized people. It discourages critical thinking skills and a mind that questions authority. It discourages alternate theories of how things work/operate. It is designed to prepare people to enter a workforce of cookie-cutter drones in support of the status quo and to never question whether said status quo is actually beneficial to society, or if it is designed to benefit the Power-Elite. It rewards people (presumably like you since you brag about your income) for following in goose-step with the system, and punishes those who question the morality of its operation, such as the 99% are now doing.

I usually do not spend time with trolls, because they are a waste of everyone's time on these forums. I chose to do so with you because I believed, initially, that your obvious intelligence might be coupled to an open mind. I see that I was mistaken. I have spent decades in questioning observation, since Reagan really, as to why the middle-class has continued to decline while the 1% went from wealthy to mega-wealthy, why no one ever questioned Reaganomics voodoo trickle-down, why people couldn't understand how our National debt would one day bring us to ruin, why people would stand passively by and watch outsourcing and off-shoring gut the workforce down to subsistence minimum wage jobs, why people couldn't understand what the Republicans were really up to, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

I have no doubt you will feel compelled to respond to this. You probably get your rocks off playing mental chess with people on these forums, as it provides some type of perverted proof to you that you are superior to everyone else. I usually never reveal this on these forums, because I am embarrassed to do so. But in your case I will make an exception. I am a member of Mensa, member #1115734, so you are not dealing with the idiot that you imply that I am (and everyone else who questions the status quo, for that matter).

I will not be wasting my time with you any longer. You are not worth it, and I have yet another book to read (sigh).

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Very nice Underdog, Very nice slappage of an obvious troll supporter of greed and corruption. Where do the corrupt find these idiots to attack the movements against greed and corruption. Most of them provide real time proof of the need for our work here. That speech could make for a nice post.

Excellent work.

[-] 4 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Thanks DK. I usually don't even bother with them. I was duped by this one into believing he/she actually held possibility for intelligent dialog. I was wrong.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

They are the hardest to spot. Often times though it can work in your favor if you continue to put out good information it kind of blows up in their face. Keep-on Keepin-on.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Supporter of greed and corruption? What do you know about me? I am the sort of guy who never, not even once, cheated in exams, never copied an assignment from kindergarten to undergrad, not even once. I have very likely lived a far more honest life than most of you self righteous a$$holes here who only see corruption and greed in others but never look inward at their own actions.

I don't make tall claims about my honesty like you joker here. I am as honest or as dishonest as the next guy. I have worked for more than a dozen charities and even gave extra math lessons to a few kids I knew whose parents couldn't afford to send them to good schools; i did that for 5 years and helped a total of 9 kids.

The reason I detest you people is because of the fatalist thinking you are breeding; the notion that life is rigged against you and you can't do anything about it. I can't stand such hopeless people and I am afraid that you are setting a very bad standard for future generations. All of you whiners should be sent for a 5 year exile in a third world country and see how hopeless life really can be (i have traveled a few countries) a and how lucky you are to be in a country where everything is pretty much served to you on a platter. I like wallst because it rewards smartness, no amount of ass licking can get you up the ladder if you don't show good numbers; here people don't whine if the economy is down or if there are black/grew swan events, here you get results or you leave.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

We know your post comments. You outed yourself. Don't come crying to me if you are identified for what you are. If you are so good and righteous you should well be able to see the corruption and crime running rampant through WallStreet. You should be as angry shocked dissapoint'ed outraged disgusted as the rest of us, more so because this is where you work. Don't try to defend shit, support reform.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Yeah I dont defend shit which is why I despise you guys. I cannot defend failure in good conscience.

[-] 5 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Look genius, it is fine with me if you wish to hurl insults and hatred my way, but if you think I am going to just stand by and watch you throw troll mud at DKAToday, who has been on this site since October 18, 2011 making good and important contributions for positive change in a world ruled by the like of your ilk, then you better get your head out of your ass.

Let's see, where do I begin? How about your current contributions? Been here since March 16 right? I have no doubt you have been here much longer under different names. What do you hope to accomplish except to stir up shit for your own amusement?

I have watched "people" like you all my life. They sit on the sideline and watch while the visionaries do the hard work of planning and implementing changes for a better world, then, when the work is done, they step in and reap the benefits. They have no original ideas, no positive vision for how to improve society. Your are a parasitic germ on the social fabric. What a vision you undertook for your career -- let's just make money in the artificial world of abstract finance. We'll just join the herd of rape and pillage and what the hell do we care if we wreck the economy and flush millions of hard-working people down the toilet? Just give us our fat bonuses and ability to bribe politicians to keep our sorry asses out of jail and we'll be more than happy to keep giving America the finger.

You wanted me to provide you with verification of my M membership. You already have my age, alma mater, date of grad, and my M member number. Since you could be not only your average run-of-the-mill cockroach troll, but now a possible government cockroach troll, just use your Bush/Obama surveillance machine to probe the M database. I didn't make up the ID. I'm sure there is already enough cross-reference data from my contributions to these forums since January 20 to make a positive ID. What more do you want from me? My SS number? Why don't I just give you my name and address? Ever generate enough electrical energy in that brain of yours to think of contacting M to just ask if such a member number exists in their database? Shocking that a mental giant of your caliber couldn't put that simple act together. Oh, you could just go ahead and take the standardized test and get in that way...then you would know.

You will not find a single comment from me like this anywhere else on these forums. You are the first where I have chosen to get down in the slimy mud pit where you chose to live. In the future, if you care to enter the forensic arena of actual intelligent debate, do yourself a favor and study up on Formal Logic. I'll even help you to gain a smidgen of awareness by suggesting that you begin by studying the basic Logical Fallacies reproduced in the link below. From the very first, you have provided no empirical evidence to support your claims, but choose to err in the most widely used fallacy -- that of attacking the person rather than the argument. The final recourse of those with no rebutal skills and/or imagination. Of course, I have purposely chosen to do it here, but you are not even knowledgable enough to know you are committing so many logical fallacies that you are nothing more than a complete embarrassment to yourself. Clueless.

This time I mean it shithead. No more responses from me. What I do here is for DKAToday's benefit, not mine.


[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I don't like getting down in the "slimy mud pit" either , but you picked a good time to do so.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Underdog !! Wow. I am speechless. I am honored by your impassioned support. But please do not lower your values just to slap a troll. Truly I do not know what to say. I am no one special and if I never posted again this movement against corruption would continue. My God, I have never had anyone speak for me like that. Thank you. I do not know what else to say.


[+] -4 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

ah, so this DKAToday has made positive change in the world, eh? How? By endlessly typing poorly thought out and factually incorrect BS at a obscure forum. Looks like changing the world has become very easy these days. Where do you guys get such high sense of self esteem from? And people call us at Wall St arrogant and narcissistic. At least we have something to show for it. Don't waste my time dumbass. Go gang up with your Zietard and Occutard sycophants and 'change the world'.

You want me to contact Mensa to verify your supposed membership. Seriously dude, you think way too highly of yourself. You really need to have lower self esteem. And I am govt agent, is it? I would be but the pay is not good.

And you are a visionary too, is it? Wow. You are so full of yourself. Massive delusions of grandeur. As for studying formal logic, I would strongly advise you to not throw around words, might come and bite you later. You see, coincidentally I have a math degree of all things and we actually study this stuff instead of just throwing words around.

Empirical evidence? You might as well as me to prove the earth is round and the sun is at the center of the solar system. The 'evidence' you ask is elementary macroeconomics. If you had cared to put down that '101 Conspiracies' book and cared to read something useful you would know. I have no desire to teach you econ here. Besides, you are too dumb to understand anyway.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Again you support the position you find your self in - a recognized Troll supporting greed and corruption.


Thank you for playing.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

You're getting nasty now. I might have to call April in. You do remember her very vivid analogy as to what the products banks were selling unwary investors...don't you? Let's see...I think she referred to them as "flaming piles of shit with ribbons tied on them." I still can't get that picture out of my mind. You? :-)

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Great reply...I'm impressed.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Thanks Odin. I think I just sorta "snapped".

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I am awed" at the best of the best intellects on this forum ..

very glad to have you here ..

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Looks like you went through the index and listed out some terms. I am not sure what you graduated in but the way I see it your understanding of economics is severely lacking. Of course that is just my opinion and opinion about yourself would obviously differ. You know actually I think most people should really have lower sense of self esteem.

As for your supposed Mensa affiliation, please tell me how I can verify it. I am not a high IQ person, an IQ test 4 years ago put my IQ at a range of 138-145 if I recall correctly, not bad but certainly not genius level. Secondly, even if you are a Mensa member, it sure hasn't reflected in your professional or academic life.

Frankly, using Zeitgeist video as an example and being smart are polar opposites. So I don't at all believe you are as smart as you claim here. Just impossible.

And your statement "I have spent decades in questioning observation" smacks of a very high sense of self, and a misplaced one at that.

But hey thats the crowd you will find here and in Zeitgeist forums. Not surprised.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22816) 6 years ago

Why are you here ibanker? This is the OWS forum. Why don't you visit www.teaparty.org or www.teapartypatriots.org or someplace like that? You might fit in better there with your worldview being what it is. Here you just seem to want to insult people which is not productive.

[-] 0 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

What do you know about my world view? I am not a republican. In fact I have seen more Ron Paul supporters among the dimwits that roam this forum. And why don't you head over to www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics1.asp and learn some economics, or would that be too much for your little brain to handle?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22816) 6 years ago

I'm just sick of you insulting everyone here, and do you not understand that your posts speak to your worldview? Pretty simple stuff. And, you assume I don't know anything about economics which is really quite funny. Find another group of people somewhere to hurl insults at or better yet, find some compassion and empathy in your heart and shed your fearful reactionary stance.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

hey - just thought you would like to know that i went to the park in nyc many many times and had lots of discussions every time i was there. ron paul supporters and wall street types - you name it they were going on there. not once was it like it is on this forum - no insulting - no nastiness. the fools were put out fairly quickly by those who knew the subject. it was very interesting and lots of fun - never once did i feel like i do on this site (very often) - the creeps and quislings can say what they want and hide when they want - face to face they could not stand up to an educated group - it was not allowed to try to bully your way through an argument. keep working your side of the street - politely - maybe too politely!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22816) 6 years ago

Thanks, flip. I don't mind arguing with them, but the ad hominem attacks are too much. And, I went to the park, too, and agree with everything you say. It was an amazing experience.


[-] -1 points by VantagePoint250624 (-51) 6 years ago

mensa requires only 120 or 130......whatever the upper 2 percentile happens to be

It's amusing that the handful here think they are 999ers...... not even close.

If they were, they'd realize our Republic was indeed sold out long ago and DC's government is absolutely owned by old world money.

It would be less futile and foolish to try and find fair and equitable solutions to coexist with serial killers than to earnestly believe an owned and bankrupt government, pretending to be a Republic of the people, can be even held accountable, much less equitable.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

When did they start teaching macro economics in 101?

It doesn't work at all like a checkbook.


No wonder the chimps can out trade humans.

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

You should read that link. You need it. As for chimps, once again I make more money now than you in my very first year of this job than you can make at any point of time in your career. So shut up.

[-] 5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago


Oh my.......Still full of yourself?

You should read beyond econ. 101. Try and learn something useful.

Care for a cavendish?

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

You know, not many people I know have actually ever had the guts to tell me to 'learn something useful'. May be it's because of my rather decent academic record, getting into a very prestigious university, being 6th in my batch or many of the other reasons. But this is internet and I have to take shit from people like you.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33636) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago


6th in your Batch?

Like in a bakers dozen ( 13 ) ?

Or in like a microbiology experiment? 6th in your batch of streptococcus?

Yes you do remind one of a nasty germ. I vote you were 6th in a batch of streptococcus.

-1 points by ibanker (-27) 40 minutes ago

You know, not many people I know have actually ever had the guts to tell me to 'learn something useful'. May be it's because of my rather decent academic record, getting into a very prestigious university, being 6th in my batch or many of the other reasons. But this is internet and I have to take shit from people like you. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

like in.. bad batch ;-]

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Try that one more time. Learn something beyond econ. 101.


Keep on insulting and it will come back on you.

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 6 years ago

You're a jerk and this conversation pains me.

What is money? Money is any good that is widely used and accepted in transactions involving the transfer of goods and services from one person to another. Economists differentiate among three different types of money: commodity money, fiat money, and bank money. Commodity money is a good whose value serves as the value of money. Gold coins are an example of commodity money. In most countries, commodity money has been replaced with fiat money. Fiat money is a good, the value of which is less than the value it represents as money. Dollar bills are an example of fiat money because their value as slips of printed paper is less than their value as money. Bank money consists of the book credit that banks extend to their depositors. Transactions made using checks drawn on deposits held at banks involve the use of bank money.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

""It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?"

~Andrew Jackson

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."

~ Otto Von Bismark

"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

~ Abraham Lincoln (on creation of the Greenback)

"In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

~ John Kenneth Galbrath

The debt will never be retired without abolishing the Fed. Abolish the Fed, print Greenbacks and declare independence from private central banks.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Here! Here! Excellent!!! I think you have done a much better job using quotations than I did trying to just explain the problem.

Whatever the approach, this information needs to make it into the minds of the American public at large, and most importantly, the reason why we need this gigantic change in the money supply.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Thanks! Choosing good speakers helps. ;-)

The great part is, it's not even a gigantic change. It has monumental impact, but the mechanism is rather simple. Nationalize the Fed, stop printing Federal Reserve Notes and slowly retire the national debt as they are replaced by U.S. Notes. It would take about two years to get most of the Fed notes out of circulation. It would cost more up front, because we'd be paying off long-term bonds early, but it would cost very little in the end.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

And, of course, it's not that it couldn't be done, but that the really sad part is that the power-elite will resist this with every possible resource at their disposal. That's the takeaway that angers me.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Ain't that the truth! I'm so paranoid about it, I'm thinking way ahead to how we prevent some Governor or whatever President is in office from declaring martial law to prevent a human rights amendment from passing through the last few state legislatures (if it gets that far). I think they know we're at a tipping point and they'll happily tip us all into oblivion.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I like what Mr Lincoln wrote.

[-] 2 points by Blank102 (86) from American Canyon, CA 6 years ago

Good point! I'd never thought of it that way.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Thanks , I truly believe we are doing something wrong when we use a system that creates a debt by creating jobs.. in a sovereign nation of democracy we can do better , much better.

[-] -3 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

You never thought of it that way because thinking that way would be wrong. These guys dont have a clue what they are talking about.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

You're an idiot on your best day.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

Simple answer, there is a constitutional requirement for the government to repay it's debts.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

ya but our government should have formed its own bank of the people, not chartered it out to some private hedgefund managers. That way the government would be earning the interest on the reserve notes, instead of a private organization. Its true what isaiah says, "in the last days our leaders wisdom shall flee them".

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

But how can something we earned be a debt ? It puzzles me.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

Very simple, you've been paid with borrowed funds, you personally don't owe anything, but your government does. That's why it may have to be paid back with tax dollars collected from you or cuts to government services provided to you. Who knows maybe the Chinese will take something in trade, give them a state or two for some of those trillions in debt.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Why would a sovereign nation with the ability to print its own currency , " borrow money ?

Surely you see a flaw in the mechanism.

Tax collecting is a very old outdated failed system.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

"Why would a sovereign nation with the ability to print its own currency , " borrow money ?"

That is the 15 trillion dollar question (literally). Could the answer possibly be that someone is benefitting by such an arrangement? Could that someone possibly be the private owners of the Federal Reserve? Remember, the Federal Reserve is NOT a part of the US Government. It is neither "Federal", nor does it typically keep "Reserves" on hand in its vaults. It is a PRIVATE bank owned by a cartel of banks, and those cartel of banks have some VERY wealthy shareholders.

Could they possibly be the Power-Elite that own and run the world?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Exactly correct (and more than a bit frightening).

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Read this book:


And/or watch this video:


Then you will understand.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 6 years ago

Check out www.nationalday911.org lots of managing mistakes have been made maybe OWS could adopt this and make it right.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 6 years ago

The money was not spent but transferd from the workers to the rich.With Intrest DUE!

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

I say we cancel our debts and declare them null and void. And switch the printing of money back to Congress where it rightfully belongs according to the Constitution instead of leaving the creation of money in private Central Banks.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I say we print enough money to buy back all the bonds.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

I know it can be confusing, but remember that the money you want to print up does not belong to the US Government. It belongs to the Fed. And the only way the US Government can get its hands on it is to exchange more bonds for those dollars. So printing up X dollars does no good because in order to "buy back all the bonds" as you put it, would require exchanging Y more bonds to "buy back" the original Y amount of bonds.

Get it? Translation: We are screwed.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I am trying to .. but it seems you are saying we must have the money in bonds to buy fed money .. which we would than owe to the bond holder and not the fed ? It doesn't seem to be printing money at all but using existing money .. ?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

No, no. Bonds are not money, and the US Treasury just prints them up the same way the Fed just prints up their FRNs. Bonds represent future value in the sense that they are a promise to repay the bondholder at some point in the future, whereupon the debt obligation would be eliminated.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

where I was trying to go with this , is that we could borrow money [ 2 trillion ] from the fed and pay off china [ 2 trillion ] and our total debt would remain the same amount , except now china has two trillion dollars for circulation .. it would be huge stimulus for the economy..

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

EXACTLY! , except that you can't just default on the debt. That would cause world-wide economic destruction. What you can do is create new legal tender government-owned money to pay off all debts foreign and domestic (including those owed to the Fed), then declare all Federal Reserve Notes null and void by either nationalizing the Fed or abolishing it by revoking its charter.

[-] 2 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

Very good ideas there underdog. The best thing to do is nationalize the Fed that way they can't just do a superficial name change and come bank with a more efficient means of fleecing people.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

I agree. If you look at history, the International Banksters have been relentlessly pursuing their agenda of enslaving the entire world for hundreds of years.

They are absolutely determined to win at all costs.

Power-freaks. Egomaniacal narcissists.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I'm not quite sure I'm following your logic here? If I go and borrow a bunch of money from a bank, how can anyone rationally say I earned it?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

We the people earned it, we didn't borrow it.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Every dollar placed into the money supply is loaned to the country for all debts public and private. In our current economic paradigm, money IS debt, and debt IS money. Until you establish a system that is not based on debt owed to the Federal Reserve (because Federal Reserve Notes are the property of the Fed, a private bank), there will be no solution.

But there IS a solution. The US government should either nationalize the Fed or revoke its charter. Money should be converted to instruments of beneficial convenience/use to society rather than debt instruments owed to a private bank like the Fed. We need to eliminate Federal Reserve Notes and replace them with United States Notes that the US government will produce and own itself, rather than continuing with the unsustainable insanity of trying to maintain a debt-based monetary supply.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Every dollar placed into the country is earned. It's the system that is incorrect , not me.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

How is it "earned"? Earned implies an exchange of goods or services for monies received. I give you something, you give me something. But the "money" received is not money...it is debt. So you and me and everyone else are exchanging our labor for what we think is money but is actually debt instruments requiring repayment.

You are saying that you have "earned" the right to receive debt instruments that you use to pay your bills. In actuality, you did not earn it. You are enslaved by it. Slaves do not "earn" anything except, perhaps, their freedom someday (if they are lucky and diligent).

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

We the people are not allowed to " print money. Only the government can print money. They print it, we earn it. Why the he'll should we be taxed to pay it back. And why the he'll does government borrow money and pay interest when they can print it for free ! Print 600 billion and pay china back. Let china buy some of our stuff with the money and it will do more good than paying them interest.

Yes we earned every penny with our labor. The government did not give us any money. We worked for it.

The system is bass- ackward. We are working for the money and than we have to pay it back????

Let's take a closer look at this.

Btw. It's interesting in your previous comment how the bank influenced government back in the 1700's ? Even with a king at the helm before democracy !

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

"And why the he'll does government borrow money and pay interest when they can print it for free !"

That is the exact crux and heart of the problem. The US Government was influenced by powerful men like J P Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and others back in the day to create the Fed in 1913, supposedly as a means to stabilize economies after the 1907 recession. But it didn't work. The 1929 crash proved that.

The Fed was conceived in collusion. Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin. On an island off the coast of Georgia owned by J. P. Morgan, a private and top secret meeting was held in 1910 hosted by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, a business associate of Morgan and father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr.

Starting to get the idea?

One of the attendees, Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, then the most powerful New York bank (now called Citibank) wrote later of the meeting:

"We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal . . . where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness. . . . Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen. . . . If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage in Congress . . . [A]though the Aldrich Federal Reserve plan was defeated its essential points were contained in the plan that was finally adopted."

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

what does the federal reserve do with the interest it earns ? does it become added to the national budget ?

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Bonds are issued with a face value that is higher than the purchase price. The difference is the interest the U.S. Treasury pays for the loan. The rate of interest depends on several factors, including length of bond contract.

All currency in America is created by selling bonds that are issued by the Fed. All proceeds are funneled through the Fed to the U.S. treasury. As the bonds mature, the face value must be paid by the government. The Fed keeps a portion of the interest (roughly 1.5% of the whole) as the fee for the service of providing debt-backed currency.

The Fed doesn't earn the bond interest, the bond holders do. The Fed just keeps it's cut. Given the sheer volume of currency being created every year, even a tiny cut adds up to a couple billion dollars or more, depending on the year. And whatever they earn, they keep.

So we have two layers of automatic devaluation going on:

1) debt-backed currency is instantly devalued the moment it's created by virtue of the interest owed on the loan;

2) the cut the Fed takes reduces value by an additional 1-ish percent, every year.

Abraham Lincoln's Greenback was free currency. No debt, no interest, no automatic devaluation. Colonial scrip was the same. Those who say we need a return to the gold standard just want to empower the banks again. We don't even need a silver-backed currency. Any and all currency derives its value exclusively from the power to pay taxes with it.

From Wikipedia:

"During his reign, King Henry [I] introduced the tally stick, which started primarily as a form of record keeping but evolved into a monetary system. Since tally sticks could be used to pay the taxes imposed by the king, he created a demand for tally sticks. This demand expanded their role and they began to circulate as a form of money. This practice survived for many years, a little over 700 in fact, until it was finally retired in 1826."

In the 700 years that the tally stick was the currency of England, they became the largest empire the world had ever seen. In the almost two hundred years since then, they have been on a steady decline. Debt-backed currency is the bane of human existence.


[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

God man I love your explanations. Much better than mine IMO. We are 100% in agreement. If I weren't already married I'd propose :-)

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

And we'd both be polygamists! LOL

Seriously, thanks a lot. I've been in the media most of my life so I've learned a thing or two about writing and communications. And for the record, it was my admiration of your discussion that prompted me to jump in with my two cents. Keep up the great work.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Thanks, and you too. These forums need as many folks as possible like you spreading the word. If you're in the media, I would hope that you might have the opportunity to educate the public about this if possible. But I know much of the media is owned now by the "Owners" and i wouldn't want you to get canned trying to spread the truth.

And speaking of the truth, thanks for the Renaissance 2.0 clip. I was so impressed, I searched/retrieved the whole thing and added it to my YouTube favorites. At 1 hr 45 min, it is a bit long for most people, but I will be highly recommending it to others from here on nevertheless. If you haven't seen the whole thing, here it is.


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

just a 2nd reply-

it sounds as though you are saying the money is not actually printed by the fed , but funneled through.. as if the money received for the bonds is passed on through to the tresury .. ? I thought I had cleared this up with underdog .. I had suspected we were buying money from the fed .. but why would we do that ? I am still not clear on this ..

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

We don't "buy" money from the Fed, we "borrow" it. All current dollars are "Federal Reserve Notes," meaning they were printed by and ultimately are owned by the Fed. Abraham Lincoln's Greenbacks were still in circulation until at least the 1970s (the last batch of Greenbacks was printed in 1971). Greenbacks were "United States Notes," meaning they belonged to the U.S. Treasury and were printed interest free.

To print US Notes, the Treasury need only get a mandate from Congress. To print Federal Reserve Notes, the U.S. Treasury borrows the money to put into circulation and must give it back to the Fed with interest. Most new money is not printed anymore but simply transferred as electronic digits. The Fed collects the money from the bond investors and hands that over to the U.S. Treasury. But the amount they collect on each bond sale is lower than the amount owed on those bonds because every purchase carries an interest rate, plus the Fed's cut. All American currency is borrowed from the Fed, not owned by the government or the people.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

but why does the fed collect money from bond investors and pass it on .. ? this is the part that seems like we are using existing money .. and not actually printing money.. can you clarify this further .. please.

like why would china give the fed money that is than passed onto the treasury , when the fed could just print it up ? something here is out of line in my mind .. just would like clarification thanks

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Yes, it takes money to make money in this system. It's totally asinine but there it is. If there was no money already in the system, the Fed would not function. If you watch the entire video series that I linked to, you'll see it's a product of manufactured scarcity and built into the system by design but it could only have gotten its start if currency existed elsewhere in the system ahead of time.

US Notes can be printed out of thin air, which why it's called "fiat" money and so many people believe it would lead to hyper-inflation. But that's a myth based on a lie. All new currency is printed out thin air. Fiat money is printed out of today's air. Debt-based Federal Reserve Notes are printed out of tomorrow's air. It's a tax on future purchasing power from the day it's printed.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

In reply to your lower comment, pewestlake-

Yes , I understand a bond is an IOU.

But here's the thing.. the fed prints a US note , and we the people earn that note .. so now when we want to cash it in the fed should owe us on that note .. we earned it and created it's value with our labor. we therefor should not have to owe on it but rather be owed " for it ! notes are like dollar bills right ?

I understand the value of the bond on maturity has added interest .. the yield the profit.. okay good so far ..

..and the yield is the additional cost of borrowing money .. a few percent.. ?

oh .. okay so the fed prints out a bit more to pay the "yield " and this adds to the overall amount of money in circulation .. as an " inflation.. and the person holding the bond , enjoys the increase ..

and quantitive easing .. also adds currency .. there has to be more there I am sure .. lol

Well you are expertly trained on this .. without doubt..

thank you pewestlake

Going back to the yield that is added to the bond.. the fed actually prints that portion but adds it to the overall taxpayers debt .. ? now the taxpayer will have to work for the bond holder to try to earn it back and repay the fed ..? piece by piece ..

A couple things-

Everything that the government spends tax dollars on has no resale value.. ie. the government pays to build a hwy , or pays school teachers , or many other items the tax dollar is spent on .. therefore the government makes no profit on the tax it spends ..so it collects tax from everyone to pay back the debt ..and create budget .. for next fiscal year.. they even collect taxes from the people they pay with taxes ??? they will pay a teachers salary , and than take some of it back in salary tax .. [ there is something clearly wrong with that ] it's a direct give and take back. If everyone worked for the government they would have to tax salary at 100 % .. or possibly higher ..

Going back to my original post .. the money that is spent by the government is worked for/earned by the people and should not have to be paid back. It is not a debt the people created , but a livable society of school teachers and highways etc. with all their labor. The idea of all this work creating a debt .. a debt that was partially printed out of thin air .. is blindly wrong.

here is where I made a proposal to correct this system , with an hour-coin credit system that creates no debt .. for the work force to repay.

The hour-coin is only printed as people work hour by hour .. and everything we the people produce is calculated by the amount of hour coins it took to produce. as we the people make purchases with the hour-coins we are credited , they[the credit] become null and we own the purchase .. the only way inflation would occur in a system such as this , is when we are not efficient in our production .. and more hour coins are needed to produce less .. efficiency is the key to a short work week, and more production.

Well thanks so much for a listening ear .. and all your information ..

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

"Everything that the government spends tax dollars on has no resale value.. "

Not true at all. It depends on the type of spending. There is no market principle that says all government spending is destructive debt. Destructive debt is debt incurred for no added value, like paying for dinner on a credit card. The food is gone and the interest you pay won't make it taste any better or make it more filling. Destructive debt.

But a college education is constructive debt, assuming it gets you a better job and the ability to pay off the loan without worsening your financial condition. A car is destructive because it will not appreciate in value. A factory is constructive because it will.

When government spends on infrastructure, increased economic activity brings higher tax revenues. That's a positive. When government spends on war, nothing of value is built anywhere, deficits ensue.

Yeah, we don't need to go to entirely new "systems" of money. We just need to end the concept of debt-backed currency and we'll be out from under the financial beast. Sovereign money is the mantra. Not backed by gold, not backed by silver, not backed by debt. Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and made real by the fact that taxes can be paid with it. That's all it takes.

We do have to have a functional Federal government and that does require some taxation. However, without the debt-backed system siphoning billions into the financial sector every year, the amount of taxation required would plummet to pre-1913 levels. Remember, government is what we make it. Banks are what they made themselves. Remove the banks, the government is easy.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I think I am starting to see .. but this still has a paradox to it ..

You say the system wouldn't work if there had not been existing money .. and than you say they print out of thin air .. and I will add , bonds are sold for what purpose I do not know ?

Is this really so difficult to understand , or is it just me !

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

There are two things that prevent anyone from fully grasping this right away. 1) It's outside of everything we've ever been told about our system, and 2) it's utterly insane! "U.S. Treasury Notes" is what U.S. Bonds are called, almost the same as a U.S. Note, right? Part of the fraud.

There are several types of bonds, including municipal bonds issued by cities. All bonds are created for the purpose of borrowing money and all bonds "mature," or reach their full face value, in a fixed amount of time. If you've heard of 2-year notes and 10-year notes, that's what that means. Remember, the face value of the bond is higher than the purchase price and the difference is interest owed by the issuer of the bond. The total amount of interest, divided by the purchase price of the bond, gives you a percentage that is described as "yield" on the bond market. The yield is the profit earned by the purchaser of the bond.

U.S. Treasury Notes are used to create currency by borrowing money (from all over the world, in any currency) which is converted to Federal Reserve Notes and deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The yield that U.S. Treasury Notes earn is the amount of extra money that every dollar costs American taxpayers to create currency.

What you're having a hard time with is how MORE money is created from the existing pool that came before. That's the function of the debt. Every dollar that is created costs more than it's face value because it's creation also created a liability of debt. So every dollar that is created by the sale of a bond incurs an automatic increase in the money supply to pay the debt. In other words, the Fed/Treasury cycle is always creating a bit more money than is purchased by bond holders, which increases the money supply and automatically devalues the currency a tiny bit.

There's also one more way the Fed can add to the money supply, though it's rarely used. They can purchase assets from large investment banks with newly printed money that is not backed by bonds. Those banks then lend that money out into the economy, presumably. This is what is described as "quantitative easing" and most economists see it mainly as a tool for controlling inflation/deflation. There have been three rounds of quantitative easing since the housing collapse to prevent deflation, but Ben Bernanke has been criticized for doing it for a number of reasons, none of which make sense to reasonable people. ;-)

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Thanks for the comment-

Somehow we have it in our heads , that the way we do things is the only way there is .. this money creating/debt tax collecting system is a complete failure ..

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

I actually don't know the answer to that. Since it is a private bank, the most general answer I could surmise would be -- "Whatever it wants to." This aspect of the Fed is beyond my current knowledge.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

I guess we missed the island meeting ..and may never know !

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

Make the capitalists pay or bring the system down.



[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 6 years ago

You don't earn debt moron. Go back to school.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

This government has no intention of ever paying it back.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

We earn money to build the product. We spend money to buy the product.

The government prints the money to pay us as we earn. And than the money expires as we spend.

With this the government can print an unlimited amount without debt.

Currently the debt system ties the governments hands and people are out of work. And what's even worse we are expected to pay back all the money the government prints(withinterest) after we worked for it. If that ain't double jeopardy what is.!

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

While it is true that the US Mint "prints" money, it is important to realize that the "money" is not the property of the US Government. It is the property of the Fed. Additionally, about 98% of the US Money supply is not "printed". It is created and exists in the form of electrical impulses (binary bits) inside bank computers. This "money" is created as debt obligations whenever a borrower takes out a bank loan for a home mortgage, car loan, or some other type of collateralized loan.

This short 10 minute video explains this concisely:


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

From my understanding, a bank can print out of thin air ten x what they actually have. Is this true?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Yes. They do it all the time. Any new collateralized loan such as home, car, boat, etc. that requires a bank loan uses Fractional Reserve Banking procedures.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

.. so .. than the bank can borrow one million from the fed at say half a percent interest , and than print out ten million and loan that out each million at 3 or 4 % .. they would be making nearly forty percent on their initial loan of one million at half percent ..

does this cause inflation ?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Typically , they do not borrow from the Fed when they create new bank credit. They are allowed by law to create new money as accounting entries to the borrower's ledger. This is called "expanding the money supply", and they can do this as long as the amount of new money/debt does not exceed their ratio of bank credit to required reserves. The Fed will track these reserves and, if required, make funds available, should the bank need them. But if the bank consistently exceeds its required bank credit restrictions, the Fed might investigate.

Banks do borrow at a lower interest and charge at a higher interest, but they don't necessarily have to do this only from the Fed. They have other sources in the financial world in which to do this if they so choose.

The main point is knowing how banks are legally allowed to create new bank credit from nothing other than the borrower's promise to repay, secured by real-world collateral such as houses, cars, boats, etc. The banks don't really put up actually physical money in the transaction. It is purely abstract accounting entry. If you default, they get the house, car, boat, or whatever.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

..okay .. that was somehow what I had thought .. I can not see how such a thing could be justified though .. the banks are borrowing money that doesn't actually exist , and charging interest on it .. smokes .. this causes huge inflation ..

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Now you get it. When I first found out about it a few years ago, I had a hard time believing it.

And they are not borrowing it. They are creating it . I personally see no difference between what they do and what a counterfeiter does, except the counterfeiter goes to jail because his money is not legal tender.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

whats even deeper troublesome .. this money they printed out of thin air , when the foreclosures came they were bailed out ? by the tax payer .. we paid them back loans that were " counterfeit money "

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 6 years ago

Why do you think Occupy sprang up? Thankfully, at long last, the people have woke up to their goings-on.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Undergog, I've been speaking with pewelstlake and francismjenkins. The three of you have given me much information on this subject . You are all highly intelligent.

Thanks to all three .. of you

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

also thanks to demandthegoodlife.com !


[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

You know I dont think everyone needs to understand economics but I think I was wrong. Just as everyone gets a basic education in physics, chemistry and biology at school so that they can understand the world around them and not have to resort to a supernatural power to explain nature that we see around us; similarly a lesson in basic economics could help you in understanding all that is now going around us.

You guys seem to revel in your ignorance. This entire conversation thread would not exist if you guys understood a little, just a little, economics. But then you don't and you go on and on making very silly statements that makes me shudder to think how ignorant the average Joe is. And the worst, he does not realize that he is.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Yeah well the rich go around telling everyone they " earned it, we are all boggled by their delusions.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Do you realize that you are stupid?

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Smart enough to recognize a problem where you are obviously unaware of.

[-] -1 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

Yes I am sure that is the case oh great one. I showed this to some of the guys at work and we almost fell off our chairs laughing.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

Talking with a troll stimulates bowel movement.

Thanks ibanker :-)

[-] -2 points by ibanker (-99) 6 years ago

i know thats why i like talking to you guys.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

..I know ..you just want to feel useful ..and needed.

[-] -1 points by leonardsova (-24) 6 years ago

All the money we have been borrowing from China, the Gov has been "giving them billions of dollars per year" for years

[-] -2 points by groupthink (12) 6 years ago

No, you borrowed what SOMEONE ELSE earned. And with it, you built some things, gave away some things, and wasted the rest.

What kind of dumb system? What kind of dumb poster?