Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Of Course we are 15.2 TRILLION in Debt, it cannot be otherwise.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 7:05 a.m. EST by bill1102inf2 (357)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

DONT BELIEVE THIS??? Tell me the LAST TIME our Government created money WITHOUT doing it through a DEBT instrument??? Feeling pretty dumb right now I bet.

Look, in a debt based monetary system, ALL MONEY is - debt.

And when debt (money) is 'created', ONLY the principal is created.

NEVER the interest to pay it.

So? So, MORE DEBT MUST be created just to keep the whole thing going.

People think China owns most of US DEBT, they do not.

In fact, only 4.6 Trillion is 'owned' by foreign countries.

MOST of it (50%) is owned by the Federal Reserve itself!!

What the hell does all this mean?

It means, that we must continue to be in debt. And, the more in debt we get, the more the Banksters and 1% get richer.

The money doesn't even EXIST to 'pay off' our debt!!! In order for it to exist in the current system, we would have to go into MORE debt, therefore its IMPOSSIBLE to pay it off.

Get it yet?

Its a BIG club.

And you AINT IN IT!

Oh Oh OH, and to ADD TO THIS BS, there are 797 TRILLION in Credit Default Swaps that have been sold against default of all kinds! Who 'sold' them? The 1%. Why did they do it? To grab more $$$. Can you sell CDS? Nope, its illegal.

A Credit Default Swap is like fire insurance on your house, only anyone can buy it, including all 1000 of your neighbors. Can you imagine if 1000 people had a pay-day coming if YOUR house burned to the ground? Makes you want to install an extra smoke detector doesn't it?

**Another way to explain it for the thick headed.

Take a credit card with a 10K limit. Make one purchase for 10K. Now work for that person you paid 10K. Even IF they paid you back 100% of what you paid them, you would NEVER-EVER-EVER-EVER be able to pay off that credit card.

64 Comments

64 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

You need to understand, that since we OWE ourselves 7.5 Trillion or so, we really don't OWE it to anyone (although to the banksters this is pure profit)

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

really the debt is owed to people with money who buy treasuries so the top few percent of the population get most of that interest

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Wrong, less than 1 Trillion is owned by 'people' - source Federal Reserve. Ben thinks its not monetizing the debt when the Fed buys its own treasuries BECAUSE he doesnt PLAN on owning to 'maturity'. What a great PLAN. Not

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

so who are you calling ourselves here - we OWE ourselves 7.5 Trillion or so - are you saying the fed owns that amount - and is that ourselves and who gets the interest on that money

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

We(the Tax Payers), and no, WE don't get the interest on the loans. As the debt is paid, the money is gone. There are two reasons we dont just write this off. One, we need a way to remove money from the system, and two, doing so would be considered a 'default' and trigger Credit Default Swaps (blowing up the worlds economy)

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

I think the worlds economy blew up...It's a ship with a massive hole in it's side and the only cure the "leaders" can come with is.... more hole...and more cowbell, and more of everything that couldn't possibly fix the problem because if we actually fixed the problem then the people who made money would lose money or not be able to make more money or would make a little less money doing something else...So we can't fix the problem..and really there is no problem except you people complaining about some problem.

Stop mentioning that the system is corrupt, a ponzi scheme, a fake economy, and that our politicians are just bought and paid for by the very same people destroying the system in order to save the system.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

so who gets the interest on those loans? not sure you are being very clear here - have you read graeber?

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

its the process in reverse. When debt is 'retired' the money comes out of the system and along with it the ability to lend via leverage.$100 is borrowed into existence allowing $1000 to be magically created by private banks, when that $100 is paid back it comes out of the system and so does the 1000 created dollars. Of course its immediately RE-DEBTED into the system, hence why we have an ever increasing nat debt

[-] 4 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

If we had no debt, we would have no money . . . under the Federal Reserve System, which was created in extreme secrecy by 'banksters' for the enrichment of 'banksters.'

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i know all of this but you are not answering my question - it works both ways of course - when debt is retired money comes out of the system and when it is created it goes into the system. when i put my new flatscreen on a card money is created! anyone alive during the carter years knew this when he asked us to pay down credit card debt and money disappeared from the economy - then they said oops - don't worry keep playing with your cards. if all the debt is paid off there is no money - not a good thing it seems to me - i think you are in over your head here - what are you saying - good or bad - do we need more debt or less. don't rush, you can use google but i am getting the feeling the you have read the talking points but don't really get what you are saying

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Im saying the system is the problem, in our debt system we need ever increasing debt, buts its become un servicable, HURTING instead of helping our economy. Everyone can't just pay off their cards, because the money is not there for that to happen.

We would not be in this situation without the criminal banksters who invented this nonsense. If we had non debt based money, we would be rich with no Fed Debt and interest free loans.

[-] 2 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

as you would say - WRONG - as i said before you are way off base here - money is debt - you said so yourself. we agree that too much debt can be a problem but debt is a tool - can be used to build renewable energy systems and get us off oil or can be used to build bombs that blow up people. like a hammer it can be used for good or ill. the hammer is not the problem - democratic control of the system is. we agree also that criminal bankers are a big problem but again banks are a tool - how should they be used is the question! read what i sent you and think about it! get off the ron paul soapbox and educate yourself - read graber then secrets of the temple and you will understand better.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

no flip, the politicians are the TOOLS, controlled by the Banks.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

true but not on topic - we are talking about money and debt - more to the point you were talking about money and debt. i did not say that the money system and the banks should be under the control of the politicians but under democratic control. now that is also another story so let's stay with your issue here. i pointed out a few things to you. can you respond or are we done. it is called a religious argument - you think your religion is better and i think mine is - no way of really having a reasonable debate - if you want a religious argument go somewhere else - ron's website for instance!

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

lol, no religious debate wanted here.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Since the 1960's the Federal Reserve returns all profit above 6% to the U.S. Treasury. There is no audit.

[-] 0 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

on another question do you know the history around the populist movement of the late 1800" - how they educated themselves on money and debt. if you are not able to continue with any intelligence i understand but let me know early since i do not have lots of time to waste - by the way are you a ron paul fan? thanks

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

flip, I do not know, but will look into the populist movement, the system in the 1800's was different than the system we have now. Ill vote RP over Obamy most likely

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Ok, that was easy, what about it?? "prevent poverty among farming and working-class families" Well, they certainly prevented poverty amongst farmers (making them rich), and failed at protecting working-class families

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

what are you talking about - did you read about populism - is that what you are referring to - if so read some more - wow you need help here

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

not so different - the farmers were at the mercy of the new york banks when they needed credit - dirt poor farmers traveled miles in wagons to educate themselves about the system of money and debt and fiat currency and hard money were hot issues at the time - here is a bit of graber - you can get he whole interview at the naked capitalist website - Philip Pilkington: Let’s begin. Most economists claim that money was invented to replace the barter system. But you’ve found something quite different, am I correct?

David Graeber: Yes there’s a standard story we’re all taught, a ‘once upon a time’ — it’s a fairy tale.

It really deserves no other introduction: according to this theory all transactions were by barter. “Tell you what, I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow.” Or three arrow-heads for that beaver pelt or what-have-you. This created inconveniences, because maybe your neighbor doesn’t need chickens right now, so you have to invent money.

The story goes back at least to Adam Smith and in its own way it’s the founding myth of economics. Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two by now. After all people have been looking since 1776, when the Wealth of Nations first came out. But if you think about it for just a second, it’s hardly surprising that we haven’t found anything.

Think about what they’re saying here – basically: that a bunch of Neolithic farmers in a village somewhere, or Native Americans or whatever, will be engaging in transactions only through the spot trade. So, if your neighbor doesn’t have what you want right now, no big deal. Obviously what would really happen, and this is what anthropologists observe when neighbors do engage in something like exchange with each other, if you want your neighbor’s cow, you’d say, “wow, nice cow” and he’d say “you like it? Take it!” – and now you owe him one. Quite often people don’t even engage in exchange at all – if they were real Iroquois or other Native Americans, for example, all such things would probably be allocated by women’s councils.

So the real question is not how does barter generate some sort of medium of exchange, that then becomes money, but rather, how does that broad sense of ‘I owe you one’ turn into a precise system of measurement – that is: money as a unit of account?

By the time the curtain goes up on the historical record in ancient Mesopotamia, around 3200 BC, it’s already happened. There’s an elaborate system of money of account and complex credit systems. (Money as medium of exchange or as a standardized circulating units of gold, silver, bronze or whatever, only comes much later.)

So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears. DG: One of my inspirations for ‘Debt: The First 5,000 Years’ was Keith Hart’s essay ‘Two Sides of the Coin’. In that essay Hart points out that not only do different schools of economics have different theories on the nature of money, but there is also reason to believe that both are right. Money has, for most of its history, been a strange hybrid entity that takes on aspects of both commodity (object) and credit (social relation.) What I think I’ve managed to add to that is the historical realization that while money has always been both, it swings back and forth – there are periods where credit is primary, and everyone adopts more or less Chartalist theories of money and others where cash tends to predominate and commodity theories of money instead come to the fore. We tend to forget that in, say, the Middle Ages, from France to China, Chartalism was just common sense: money was just a social convention; in practice, it was whatever the king was willing to accept in taxes.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

very nice

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

glad you liked it - his book is great but a bit confusing

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

honestly, love how he flips the fairy tale on its ass. Thats what most Americans believe their whole lives, multiple 'Fairy Tales' , whether its about money/credit, wars, religion, Santa Claus, etc.

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

yes - very sorry - misread your comment, and yes i am cranky - i was changing diapers most of the morning - bad ones! grand children - i am too old for this and not yet retired so i am grouchy! too many hard money ron paul people here. it won't happen again - sorry!

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

ah yes and you and rp have a grip on reality - there is a reality here you know - you can think what you want but look to history and you might learn something. well i doubt it - you do not seem able to absorb much - if you want to discuss a subject you have to make a counter argument not another statement like some sort of simpleton. point out where he is wrong and use facts to make your case or lie down on the couch and read - for a few years!

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

i was talking about dave. Dude, why are you so hostile and argumentative? Do you need your diaper changed? seriously

[-] 0 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

so now what is your point in all of this - debt is good or bad - money is debt?? are you in over your head here - can you do better than you have so far and have you read graeber on debt?

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The only money the government creates today are coins, which compose less than one ten-thousandth of the money supply. Federal Reserve Notes, or dollar bills, are issued by Federal Reserve Banks, all twelve of which are owned by the private banks in their district. Most of our money comes into circulation as bank loans, and it comes with an interest charge attached.

To get economic justice, you must have monetary justice

(1)The present form of the Federal Reserve System must be ended – it must become a part of our government – what people mistakenly think it is now! In the Treasury Department is best.

(2) The accounting privilege that banks now have to create what we use for money out of debt, must stop once and for all. What’s called fractional reserve banking must be decisively ended.

(3) The Congress must understand and be empowered to create new money and spend it into circulation as money, not debt. For example the $2.2 trillion dollars the Engineers tell us is needed for infrastructure over the next 5 years. As the system progresses, health care and education, and grants to the states are made.

http://www.Monetary.org

http://www.WebOfDebt.com

http://www.TheMoneyMasters.com

[-] 1 points by flip (6987) 2 years ago

i get all of the money masters stuff but mostly nonsense - i am with you on the money supply being under democratic control but you are way off base about loans etc. money is debt - has been for 5000 years - you need to read graeber if you want to understand the system - if you want to hang on to your beliefs then go ahead but that is not so smart. we agree also that we will need lots of resources to rebuild our infrastructure and create renewable energy - so now what is money and how do we use it becomes critical. - i will give you a bit to chew on.....Philip Pilkington: Let’s begin. Most economists claim that money was invented to replace the barter system. But you’ve found something quite different, am I correct?

David Graeber: Yes there’s a standard story we’re all taught, a ‘once upon a time’ — it’s a fairy tale.

It really deserves no other introduction: according to this theory all transactions were by barter. “Tell you what, I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow.” Or three arrow-heads for that beaver pelt or what-have-you. This created inconveniences, because maybe your neighbor doesn’t need chickens right now, so you have to invent money.

The story goes back at least to Adam Smith and in its own way it’s the founding myth of economics. Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two by now. After all people have been looking since 1776, when the Wealth of Nations first came out. But if you think about it for just a second, it’s hardly surprising that we haven’t found anything.

Think about what they’re saying here – basically: that a bunch of Neolithic farmers in a village somewhere, or Native Americans or whatever, will be engaging in transactions only through the spot trade. So, if your neighbor doesn’t have what you want right now, no big deal. Obviously what would really happen, and this is what anthropologists observe when neighbors do engage in something like exchange with each other, if you want your neighbor’s cow, you’d say, “wow, nice cow” and he’d say “you like it? Take it!” – and now you owe him one. Quite often people don’t even engage in exchange at all – if they were real Iroquois or other Native Americans, for example, all such things would probably be allocated by women’s councils.

So the real question is not how does barter generate some sort of medium of exchange, that then becomes money, but rather, how does that broad sense of ‘I owe you one’ turn into a precise system of measurement – that is: money as a unit of account?

By the time the curtain goes up on the historical record in ancient Mesopotamia, around 3200 BC, it’s already happened. There’s an elaborate system of money of account and complex credit systems. (Money as medium of exchange or as a standardized circulating units of gold, silver, bronze or whatever, only comes much later.)

So really, rather than the standard story – first there’s barter, then money, then finally credit comes out of that – if anything its precisely the other way around. Credit and debt comes first, then coinage emerges thousands of years later and then, when you do find “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow” type of barter systems, it’s usually when there used to be cash markets, but for some reason – as in Russia, for example, in 1998 – the currency collapses or disappears..........DG: One of my inspirations for ‘Debt: The First 5,000 Years’ was Keith Hart’s essay ‘Two Sides of the Coin’. In that essay Hart points out that not only do different schools of economics have different theories on the nature of money, but there is also reason to believe that both are right. Money has, for most of its history, been a strange hybrid entity that takes on aspects of both commodity (object) and credit (social relation.) What I think I’ve managed to add to that is the historical realization that while money has always been both, it swings back and forth – there are periods where credit is primary, and everyone adopts more or less Chartalist theories of money and others where cash tends to predominate and commodity theories of money instead come to the fore. We tend to forget that in, say, the Middle Ages, from France to China, Chartalism was just common sense: money was just a social convention; in practice, it was whatever the king was willing to accept in taxes.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694, then a privately owned bank

http://www.WebOfDebt.com

http://www.Monetary.org

http://www.TheMoneyMasters.com

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Good Post

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

With a fiscal history like the government has, WE are the ones who's transactions they want to monitor for 'suspicious activity'


::::::::::::::::Why 308,127,404 Americans Are Going To Get Hosed::::::::::::::::

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-why-308127404-americans-are-going-get-hosed

-01/11/2012-

Last week, the US government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), an agency of the US Treasury Department, published its 2011 annual report... http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/files/annual_report_fy2011.pdf ...There are a few numbers that are pretty startling.

We’ve discussed before that FinCEN is the executive agency tasked with ensuring that every US banker is an unpaid government spy through Suspicious Activity Reports.

A Suspicious Activity Report, or SAR, includes details of any transaction that may be deemed ‘suspicious’. Naturally, there’s no clear guidance on what is/is not considered suspicious. Banks, brokerages, money service businesses, precious metals dealers… even casinos are required by law to fill them out.

If you withdraw an unusual amount of cash from your bank account, that could be deemed suspicious. If you set up a new payee in your billpay service, that could be deemed suspicious. Anything and everything is fair game.

Banks and other businesses who do not fill out SARs face hefty penalties, including imprisonment. If they disclose to a customer that s/he is the subject of a SAR, they have hefty penalties, including imprisonment.

When push comes to shove and they have to choose between a nasty penalty, or submitting a SAR about your unusual cash withdrawal, which option do you think they’ll pick?

Unsurprisingly, nearly 1.5 million ‘suspicious activity reports’ were filed across the US banking system in 2011, well over twice the number reported in 2004. On top of this, there were an additional -14.8 million- ‘currency transaction reports’ filed in 2011, a 6% jump over last year.

It’s an unfortunate trend which highlights not only the end of financial privacy, but also the massive amount of data being collected by the government to keep tabs on its citizens.

According to this year’s report, a full 36 distinct federal law enforcement agencies requested information from FinCEN (and even more who haven’t). Three dozen. And that doesn’t include state or local law enforcement.

That there are this many federal law enforcement agencies to begin with is mind-boggling… let alone the thought that some knucklehead at the Fish and Wildlife Service has access to bank records.

This is one reason why international diversification is so important– the likelihood of such collection and monitoring is greatly reduced when you bank overseas. Moreover, should one of these dozens of agencies or courts decide that your ‘suspicious activity’ warrants locking you out of your accounts, they have zero jurisdiction overseas.

This is a common tactic in the US; financial activity is one of the many, many areas with a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ burden of proof. You don’t even need to be doing anything wrong (which is the case most of the time this happens) for one of these agencies to freeze your account ‘pending investigation’ with a simple phone call. Good luck getting it unfrozen.....

(((Continue Reading this article Here))) http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/why-308127404-americans-are-going-to-get-hosed/


[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Another way of putting it is that those trillions of dollars of debt are stacked away in hidden bank accounts by the 1%, as a result of their looting of the American economy. That sums it up nicely. So how do we pay off the debt? Where do we get the money? You probably guessed it.

[-] 1 points by ciaoant1 (16) 2 years ago

The system has being growing for many years through accumulating debt - this is why it needed increased leveraging, so that the banks could create this debt and "compesate" for the flight of industrial capital from the West to Asia.

http://whataboutmarx.blogspot.com/2012/01/leveragingdeleveraging-give-me-lever.html

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

Indeed, much of the money is owed to ourselves--not only the fed, who holds some of it, but also the social security trust fund, federal pensions, and if you'd like to include domestic/non-governmental entities (like banks) and individuals, you'll find we owe most of the deficit to ourselves.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

yep good points, im hoping on this promise from the father, he that digs a pit for his neighbor shall be the one to fall into the pit, not me.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html

You guys may find some useful and interesting info here. It's not my site, but, it is interesting just the same.

http://www.supremelaw.org/library/index.htm

This one has quite a bit of equally interesting and useful information.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Ok so hold on. Any money I have puts me in debt? I don't think so. If I was working and made money doing it I am not in debt for doing work and the business owner is making a profit on top of what I am being paid. No one is in debt in this scenario. You know why people are in debt? Its because they have credit cards with 10K on them, they spend it all, and they can't pay it back even though they knew they wouldn't be able to do so.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

The money you have is not your debt, its the federal governments debt, your not allowed to create money out of thin air, only Banks are allowed to do that once they get their share of 'borrowed into existence money'

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

No, if you work you are forcefully taxed some portion of money that is alleged to be your retirement and social security. That is a debt and the misappropriated funds are claimed to exist, in the form of an IOU at the Federal Reserve who has invested it in debt. Great fund managers, huh?

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

No that is unfair not debt.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Now read Article 6 of the Constitution, all the United States debt is yours and it's clear you have no say in what debts you de facto incur and accrue.

That is what is broken and unfair.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You pay it because they say you owe it, don't you? That's debt, front loaded or on the backside doesn't matter.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Not quite. Although I don't think those taxes should be mandatory.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Then read Article 6. Our original Constitution was a bankruptcy pact to pay off the Revolutionary War debts. DC has managed to work that angle of it very effectively.

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

you borrow $100 to build a factory. your factory produces some gizmos that earn you $20 a year.

hey! you have now created the principal ($100) and the interest ($20)!

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Are you dumb? That $120 is DEBT owed to someone PLUS interest.

Even if you MINE something and it costs you $0.00, the money that you sell it for is not magically created debt free, it was BORROWED into existence and when that occured only the principal was created, but, once again, not the interest on it.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It's more like you are the one dumb here. Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion, that you are right and I am wrong. How is that only you, and a few other enlightened individuals like yourself, realized this? I mean, if this is so obvious, lot more people would have realized it by now, after all the concept of money is not new in any way. Or is it that you are the only smart guy out here and everyone else is a fool?

Or may be, just may be, you are the fool here. A fool, who doesn't understand any economics and is gullible enough to fall for such cheap tricks.

Which do you think is more likely?

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

jesus fucking christ bro, REALIZE IT YOURSELF, its the WAY SHIT WORKS, i didnt create this fucked up bullshit. If it doesnt work THIS WAY, then why has not ONE MOTHERFUCKER posted how it does work???

BECAUSE THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

Either the Fed 'creates' money via DEBT OR Private Banks 'create' money via Fractional Reserve Lending (which requires an infusion of DEBT based money to get it started and continue lending) <-- as outlined above bitch!

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I don't have to realize it one bit and calling Jesus or using expletives won't help your case either. Simply go through the Chapter 1 in Mankiw's book and things should be clear. As to why no one bothered to post it here, well it is too elementary and this is not an econ classroom.

Like I said, think about it. If you are right, then not just me, but pretty much every other guy is wrong, and that includes Nobel Prize winning economists, mathematicians, statisticians and pretty much every other person we consider smart.

It's pretty much your word against everyone else. Who would I trust? No brainer.

But you don't have to go there. All you need to do is go to a library and pick up a macro econ book.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Stop advertising a $200.00 'book'.

Not ONE PERSON has had the balls to come here and write 'Thats not true, the Government just prints whatever money it wants to" link, link, link. But thanks for bumping interest in this btw.

Because they do not. They can not. They can only borrow. And when one borrows only the principal is borrowed, but, once again, NEVER the interest to pay the damn thing off. NEVER!

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It's not $200, it's pretty cheap actually. I used it during my MBA and loved it and I sure didn't have the capacity to spend $200 on a single book.

As for balls, there is a huge line between bravery and stupidity. You, my friend, are on the wrong side of it and quite dangerously so.

I will ask you one last time, before I end this discussion, to considering reading an authoritative book on macro econ. Would do you a world of good.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

End this stupid hair brained discussion and stop taking econ lessons from Youtube. Please read a proper macro econ book and clear your doubts. Is that too much to ask?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am pretty sure you read that piece of garbage "The earth plus 5 percent". Let me cut it short, you are wrong.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

nope, never read it. and Actually, its worse than what I wrote, with the whole Fractional Reserve System which allows for profits not only off your money, but imaginary leveraged money that was simply created out of thin air by our wonderful Fed Banks.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Teaching pigs to sing would be a better utilization of time. This federalist you are arguing with you knows more about everything than anyone else has forgotten about nothing. .

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

especially since the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the absense of regulations of derivatives.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

You simply don't understand fractional reserve banking and how money circulated in the economy. You either read that article I mentioned or probably read it somewhere else, it's a pretty popular conspiracy theory propagated by people who either never attended Econ 101 or slept through the class or are stupid, pick any two. Why don't you go to an econ prof and ask him if your contention is at all true? Or may be visit your nearest library and pick up a book by someone like Gregory Mankiw.

And btw, the Federal Reserve does not issue debt, that's issued by the US Treasury.

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Another lame conspiracy theory by someone who understands next to nothing about economics. Guys, stop watching Zeitgeist movies, and make the effort to read some good books instead.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

Yes, just keep Troll-lol-loling along here

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I call it like I see it. This is indeed a well known conspiracy theory.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

you, are a well know troll,lollol, but thanks for the bump