A Few Words in Favor of Fiat Currency

Topic by Stargazer

Stargazer

Home Forums Money A Few Words in Favor of Fiat Currency

This topic contains 285 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by LEO THE WISE  LEO THE WISE 1 year, 4 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 286 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #177158
    +1
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    People are really just parroting the narrative of the ruling class, because they have been trained properly to do so. This makes the facade, the illusion of legitimacy, seem not to be an illusion at all. The more indoctrinated the individual, the more powerful the persons belief in the legitimacy of the system. It’s a religion, no different than any other. I think Mark Twain said it best when he said:

    “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

    *Note that he included religion.. because statism is a religion, no different than any other. It is based on belief, hearsay, and a trust in the institution: faith. It’s based on nothing but faith. The average person only believes in it because others do. To anyone who believes otherwise, I challenge that person to recite every law in place of their residing country. They can’t, because they have no idea what the laws are. They expect to be told what they are, and do not examine the actual written laws themselves; and in most cases aren’t even authorized to.

    I totally agree with you here on all points, although i can tell some of the indoctrination has worked on you and still influences you on your views about money from your earlier posts.

    .Its not that important if you dont know exactly how money is created, most important for yourself is that you re aware that our money system wont continue forever, because the problem of compound interest cannot be solved mathematically. You know enough to act accordingly i would say.
    I only had a problem with you teaching others about what money is and how it gets created and so on, because you arent correct there.

    Mark Twain nailed it, it really is like that.

    #177221
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    I am most certainly not indoctrinated, because I did not acquire my knowledge from the state. That’s exactly why what I say about how it works, is totally different from how they say it works. My point of view in and of it’s self, is proof that I’m not peddling propaganda. The truth is not mainstream. You of all people should know that, Truther. If what you say aligns with their narrative, then you should question your own beliefs.

    #177232
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    I am most certainly not indoctrinated,

    everyone thinks that…its normal for you to feel that way.

    because I did not acquire my knowledge from the state.

    me neither

    If what you say aligns with their narrative, then you should question your own beliefs.

    I questioned my beliefs for years now…maybe i have better results, because im not so arrogant to think that Im too smart to be indoctrinated. You seem to think that you are just too smart for that… thats your problem.

    #177317
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    People who have information, and intellect can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem. As for calling me arrogant, it is a clear indicator that you know absolutely zero about me. Good. I’d prefer it that way anyhow. Truth is objective. You’re entitled to your opinion of me, and I’m entitled not to care what your opinion of me is. Hurl your derogatory insults all you like, to no effect.

    #177339
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1292

    Frankone writes:I’d say the purpose of taxes is to pay for government services and wealth redistribution that the idiot public demands.

    Veniversum writes: …and you’d be incorrect. Printed money pays for government. The top 1% or so have legislated loopholes including, but certainly not limited to, storing money on the Cayman Islands as well as entire tax libraries full of loopholes and special deals so that the rich do not have to pay taxes.

    I disagree with such black and white thinking; printed money pays for a FRACTION of the government — the deficit in 2014 was 2.8% of GDP or about a 3% GDP difference between Federal revenues and spending, around 17% and 20%, respectively. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45010-SummaryFigure2_LandingPage.png — indeed there have even been rare years the SOBs ran surpluses, e.g. 1999 and the early 2000’s (the tech bubble).

    As to the ‘rich not paying taxes’, I completely disagree. The top 2.4% of adjusted gross income filers, pony up 48.9% of total tax revenue. 48.9% is ‘not paying taxes’, that’s taking it up the rectum and paying half the total taxes!

    In my AGI, the percent of total taxes collected is 22.7% but there are only 11.4% of filers in this bracket — so we’re taking it, long, hard, and deep from Uncle Sam.

    Below $100,000 AGI, taxpayers DON’T pay their fair share. Now my opinion on this is in the extreme minority; I don’t believe in income tax, I’d rather have consumption taxes (to encourage savings/investment), and issue refunds to those who don’t consume much, say, under $15,000 consumed per yer — but if we MUST have an income tax, I believe there should be a ceiling, above which it is no longer charged, just like there is a floor below which it basically isn’t collected. Why? Because the high earners don’t get any more services from government than the low earners. In fact, even moderate earners don’t — we get less! I’ve never collected unemployment, never collected disability bennies, etc.

    Who Pays the Almighty State Tributes is a good reference

    #177346
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1292

    Sorry, the link to the image of the tax distributions didn’t come through right — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ft_15-03-23_taxesind/

    Everyone is reinforced by what they expose themselves to. I read posts by MGTOWs; it reinforces a MGTOW worldview. I read publications favoring small government; it favors that outlook. Is this indoctrination? Self-inflicted? And we are certainly indoctrinated into the socio-political system in which we were raised. I may have read small-government publications since I was a teenager, but I was indoctrinated into the US culture, attending schools, etc. And that typically impacts one’s outlook on issues. That said, I would not characterize anyone on this site as a ‘lemming’ or ‘follower’. Swallowing a red pill is anti-mainstream.

    So what to do about this echo chamber/indoctrination? Occasionally read the opposition’s viewpoints. If nothing else, it will allow you to build arguments against their viewpoints.

    Also, one other topic I wanted to discuss was compound interest. Exponential growth, in theory can continue if people demand goods that don’t consume ever more resources. http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course/ As for the ‘paradox of compound interest’, I think this gives some insight into this — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j04hSOhtBZk — it doesn’t mean fiat currency is stable as practiced — with huge debts, eventually the interest will cause a collapse.

    As far as the rest of it, State and local governments DON’T run at deficits in the US — they’re prohibited from debt, except on some capital projects like school buildings for which bonds are issued. So again, much of government IS funded by good ‘ole fashioned taxes. As for documenting the waste, you often can’t look up, say, what a specific employee makes (unless, say, the Mayor)… but I CAN look up readily, what, say, the entire Parks & Recreation Department salaries are in my municipality… So I’m not sure how much granularity you expect, but as far as I’m concerned, government spending is pretty well documented… Excessive, but documented…

    #177454
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    People who have information, and intellect can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem. As for calling me arrogant, it is a clear indicator that you know absolutely zero about me. Good. I’d prefer it that way anyhow. Truth is objective. You’re entitled to your opinion of me, and I’m entitled not to care what your opinion of me is. Hurl your derogatory insults all you like, to no effect.

    I didnt call you arrogant, I said that I´m not so arrogant to believe that I couldnt be indoctrinated.

    I said it seems ( to me )
    that you think that you are just too smart for that… thats your problem ( i think )

    now understand?

    People who have information, and intellect can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem.

    (thats not an Ad Hominem attack i guess.)

    I made alot of arguments before…
    where did i use Ad Hominem attacks there? I must have or my quote of you doesnt make sence.

    Even people with an IQ of under 70 can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem.

    You have proofed already that you state alot of bogus as facts or the truth, before

    Debt is fiction? thats rofl

    Money is created by labor?

    How can it be created by labor if money is an invention and before money people were trading goods from their labor without it.. People have been working way before money existed…

    Just to name 2 of the absolutely delusional stuff you sell here as the alone standing truth.

    Well, what can i say you know the truth about everything ( in your head ).
    I feel sorry for you somehow 🙁

    #177596
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    People who have information, and intellect can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem. As for calling me arrogant, it is a clear indicator that you know absolutely zero about me. Good. I’d prefer it that way anyhow. Truth is objective. You’re entitled to your opinion of me, and I’m entitled not to care what your opinion of me is. Hurl your derogatory insults all you like, to no effect.

    I didnt call you arrogant, I said that I´m not so arrogant to believe that I couldnt be indoctrinated.

    I said it seems ( to me )
    that you think that you are just too smart for that… thats your problem ( i think )


    now understand?

    People who have information, and intellect can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem.

    (thats not an Ad Hominem attack i guess.)

    I made alot of arguments before…
    where did i use Ad Hominem attacks there? I must have or my quote of you doesnt make sence.

    Even people with an IQ of under 70 can make an argument without resorting to Ad Hominem.

    You have proofed already that you state alot of bogus as facts or the truth, before

    Debt is fiction? thats rofl

    Money is created by labor?

    How can it be created by labor if money is an invention and before money people were trading goods from their labor without it.. People have been working way before money existed…

    Just to name 2 of the absolutely delusional stuff you sell here as the alone standing truth.

    Well, what can i say you know the truth about everything ( in your head ).
    I feel sorry for you somehow :(

    Your post doesn’t say that now, but for all I know you could have edited it. Your accusation that “I seem think I’m too smart to be indoctrinated” is Ad Hominem. It implies that I’m arrogant, as well as the previous statement. It is irrelevant to the subject, because I am not the subject, but you changed the subject “to the person” (Ad Hominem) in order to discredit the person speaking as a fallacy. You’re using even *more* Ad Hominem by saying that my argument is “delusional”. This implies that I have a mental illness. There is nothing wrong with my mental faculties, and attempting to frame that there is, is Ad Hominem. You know who hasn’t been using Ad Hominem? FrankOne. He is able to contradict anything I say with information, and doesn’t have to resort to anything personal at all. That’s why I respect his opinion. In fact, in a lot of cases we agree. We just don’t agree on this particular issue. My theory for that is because he derives his information from the government, and trusts them. I do not trust them. I don’t believe their facts and figures just because they provide them to the public. They lie to the public on a regular basis. I don’t trust their “facts” and figures, because there is a conflict of interest, and they have all the motive in the world to be dishonest about what they report to the public. That’s why mainstream media is also untrustworthy. So, are you able to have a discussion without implying that the person you are having the discussion with is arrogant, delusional, or otherwise suffering from the lack of intelligence or the presence of a mental illness? If not, perhaps you should have these discussions with Kindergartners. They like name calling, a lot.

    #177597
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    #177598
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    The national debt is fiction, because printing money is not a loan.

    #177605
    +1
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    FrankOne, no offense, but I don’t trust your links. Links and references created by government are going to reflect statistics that are in favor of government. There is nothing to prevent them from being manipulated, just like any other statistic.

    This chart (from the government) doesn’t tell me anything at all:
    https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45010-SummaryFigure2_LandingPage.png

    Who pays this company in Washington DC that manufactured this statistic?
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ft_15-03-23_taxesind/

    As for state and local governments, they aren’t the source of national debt, right? The money being printed that caused the national debt does not have to be US dollars, and it doesn’t actually have to come off the printing press. The currency can be printed (created digitally) and has the same effect, in any world currency that the world central banking cartel has control over printing. Therefore, even statistics that were completely honest, if only reflecting the actions of a single currency of a single country, would not reflect what is actually going on. China can “print” Yuan and “loan” it to the US. The currency is still being printed, and since the global economy is intertwined, it will still affect the US.

    #177611
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    Here is a video by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is a Washington think tank. The opening words of this particular representative, Patrick Clawson are, “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough..and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran.. which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of “America gets to war”, is what would be best for US interests”. What is the traditional way that America gets to war Frank? He then begins to list all of the “crisis initiations” that take place. So, why should anyone in the public trust institutions like this, or anyone else in Washington DC or Wall street to actually be honest with us about anything, much less finances? Sorry, but I don’t trust your sources.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/experts/view/clawson-patrick

    #177623
    +1
    Veniversum
    Veniversum
    Participant
    492

    In essence, the credibility of public institutions is permanently destroyed, as well as the information that they provide. It would take centuries of complete honesty, as well as intentionally developing the populace to their maximum potential, and the abolishment of all legislation that prevents such, to repair the damage. Highly improbable.

    #177651
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1292

    Veniversum: I respect you as well. And agree with many of your points — for instance, I’m against fiat currency. And I am not so naive as to believe the government never lies to the sheeple. Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone? Read my lips, no new taxes? ‘I am not a crook’, ‘Aye did not have sexual relations with that woman’ are some of my favorites. The last merely comical, with no real national consequences.

    I loved the video on ‘initiating events’ to cajole a recalcitrant public into War.

    There have even been massive lies; such as when Greece was admitted into the EU even with shaky finances (the government lied about deficits). But that was quickly discovered, and a new audit performed, as the EU demanded. It is hard to keep big secrets, over long periods.

    Much of the US national debt is in treasury bonds — they are sold to domestic and international investors. No printing of money is involved. We can’t simply default and refuse to pay all these debts back, or the dollar would collapse since no one would have faith in the federal government to pay its debts. I would also agree, the office of management and budget (OMB) and congressional budget office (CBO) can and DO often make outrageous, ‘rosy’ predictions of the future economic growth when assessing budgets & what our future deficits/debts will be like..

    The public realizes war costs lives and treasure, and enters only reluctantly. I regard nuclear proliferation as inevitable. Iran will be locked into the same mutually assured destruction scenario with Israel, as the US was with the Soviet Union. Needless to say, I’m against any war with Iran. The public is also sick of all these wars and is VERY reluctant to enter them, and skeptical too — all good things! The Bush doctrine of ‘preventative war’ sure proved unsound. In my view, Georgie Bush actually DID sincerely believe the Iraq war was the best course of action and that regieme change would be good, and painless, with no nasty counter-revolutionaries with IED’s; regardless, he and his cronies, certainly used manipulation to get the public onboard. There are various theories on this, including groupthink in the Bush administration. I use this example because it is the textbook case of government creating a ‘Crisis’ that, you got it, can only be SOLVED by government! It also was a case where one man could have made a difference. Colin Powell needed to man up and say, ‘I resign effective immediately. No WMD. Going to war is treason. I retire. Impeach the President’.

    As for the CBO chart, the side to the right of 2014 was ‘prediction’; everything to the left, is measured past econometric data. Does the CBO always support the agenda of the party in power? That’s one way to gauge its truthfulness — bear in mind, it’s a non-partisan entity, whose staff is NOT appointed by political hacks that change each election. And the answer to that one is, hell no its reports do not support the party in power! The CBO prediction of higher deficits and larger government, are one reason we didn’t get socialized medicine under Billy Clinton. https://books.google.com/books?id=WUk8puVdcm0C&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=CBO+MACROECONOMIC+DATA+QUESTIONED&source=bl&ots=ayR1Txg10C&sig=YDC2z7zmn0k03Xh8f01ZIAVavws&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj92-_t267KAhXDaT4KHWfCDYkQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=CBO%20MACROECONOMIC%20DATA%20QUESTIONED&f=false is an interesting link. The CBO is non-partisan be design. So the Jackass-in-Chief, whomever that may be, is not able to easily manipulate it to cook its book and make his or her shiny new programs look good.

    Do the wealthy avoid estate taxes? Certainly! Using the same legal mechanisms such as Trusts that the middle class people with much wealth routinely employ. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20130914-how-wal-marts-waltons-keep-the-tax-man-at-bay.ece — hell, even my middle class neighbors do this. So what I would call equal opportunity tax shelters.

    If you don’t believe US economic metrics, the markets can be trusted — in what they’ll pay for t-bonds.

    As for Pew, it’s one of the most objective sources of information, its funding is from a trust: http://www.pewresearch.org/about/our-funding/ — hell, they even survey the public on which media outlets they trust and the trust : distrust ratio. Hardly flattering information.

    The reason I brought State and local government spending into discussion, is because it comprises almost half of total big government spending. Since this ‘paid for’ spending comprises half of government total spending (approximately), that alone indicates at least half of government is paid for by taxes. Granted, the federal government gives grants and other money to State + local governments, but most of their funding, is from taxes.

    Since, over decades, there haven’t been any serious data falsifying scandals in these entities (CBO, Pew, etc), I have strong reason to believe them. If the government WERE primarily ‘printing money’, then we would observe inflation rising. We’d also observe a need for the State to pay higher returns on its T-Bonds. We aren’t seeing any of that. So those are some additional basis for believing that tax pays for most of government.

    I would agree many statistics, such as % unemployment, are of questionable utility, not because of falsification, but because of the way they are calculated — but so does everybody else — which is why they now look at employment participation figures.

    #177661
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1292

    Error in last post, I meant to say, only OMB making rosy predictions (it’s made up of the President’s lackeys as opposed to the CBO, which is non-partisan/professional). So expect rosy predictions from OMB.

    Survivor: The value of money lies in the confidence we have in it; I’m confident other people will give me stuff (goods and services) in exchange for it. Otherwise, I wouldn’t work for it and accumulate it & wouldn’t value it. It has no intrinsic value (fiat currency), and limited practical value (at least in the case of gold — it has use for jewelry and a few industrial uses). Confidence in it varies with stability of the government and the amount of money in the system (money supply). If others have no confidence in a currency, it’s worthless for exchange.

    #177672
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    It implies that I’m arrogant,

    If you think so.

    by saying that my argument is “delusional”. This implies that I have a mental illness.

    I learned this word only a few days ago and I took its meaning out of context.
    I should have looked it up in the dictionary before…Im shocked now that i see what the translation is. No your arguments arent “delusional”, they are only illusory.. Sorry about that.

    German truther. The value of money comes from the fact that the working classes have to work for it.

    Thats not the point. Havent been talking about the value of money. We talked about the creation of money. Money gets created with an accounting record, When someone obtains a credit, money is being created at the same time. 1 to 1. The problem is that the money to pay back the interest ( which isnt money or debt, just a rate that defines that you have to pay more money back than you received when taking a loan ) was not created.

    Im not saying that you dont know that, survivor. Or would you disagree ?

    If you have money you can,control people.

    oh really ? you arefunny.

    A loan is when someone gives you something they have on certain terms. Banks don’t have all the money they “loan”, it’s created when the loan is made. It exists only as debt you must work to pay back

    sure thats correct. I never doubted that this would be true.

    #177686
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    Attention! Whoever read my earlier posts.

    I made a mistake saying “delusional”, but meaning “illusory” all the time.

    You are not mentally ill!!!!

    #177779
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    1292

    Thats not the point. Havent been talking about the value of money. We talked about the creation of money. Money gets created with an accounting record, When someone obtains a credit, money is being created at the same time. 1 to 1. The problem is that the money to pay back the interest ( which isnt money or debt, just a rate that defines that you have to pay more money back than you received when taking a loan ) was not created.

    At least in the US, with our fractional reserve scheme, money is created when the Federal Reserve lends money to a commercial bank. So the part about it being an accounting record, is true. The initial money creation is 1:1, but you are leaving out a big part of the story. In the US, banks must actually have SOME assets — the ‘reserve ratio’ — the ratio of their reserve assets to how much they can lend out. This is set at 10% for larger banks. So the upper maximum for how much money the commercial bank can create from $1 in deposits, is $10, since the money multiplier is 1/0.10 = 10. Indeed, banks largely did create that much money from 1959 until the Financial Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier — i.e. they created 10 times their deposits, precisely as they should acted rationally, given the incentives to maximize profits (remember, they’re insured by the government, too big to fail, and all their mortgages are also insured by big Daddy government!). Hence my argument that $10 is created for every $1 of deposits.

    Now a problem you might raise is, that the debt can never be paid off without creating more money, that is actually false. Because interest can go to bank shareholders/owners/employees, who can use it to buy goods and services, that pay off debts — money can flow, it isn’t just a ‘stock’ quantity — it can circulate, so as to pay off MULTIPLE debts.

    You will have interest whether you have a commodity standard or not. Why? Because there is a time value of money; why would I loan it to someone for their house, instead of investing it in a company that will give me a positive return? The answer, of course, is that I WON’T, unless I’m paid interest. I also need interest, because loaning you x dollars is a risk if you don’t pay the mortgage and the bank has to fire-sale the house. In my view, fiat currency makes it easier to game the system, the high lending : asset ratio is actually ‘baked into’ the system, at least in the US.

    So, to recap: Fiat currency is NOT the only problem. Insuring bank deposits is another problem. Instead, [commercial] banks should set their own policies. Banks that lend to subprime home owners, may pay me higher interest on my deposits; but the whole bank will be more prone to collapse than, say, conservative banks that only give mortgages to homeowners who put, say, 15% down, and don’t give mortgages above, say, 30% of a person’s wages. The scheme I am describing, would completely divorce government from the process; i.e. we’d get rid of Fannie & Freddie, for instance. A truly radical departure. The government would neither promote nor discourage home ownership. There would be no mortgage tax deduction.

    #177811
    Ohno
    Ohno
    Participant
    668

    So the part about it being an accounting record, is true. The initial money creation is 1:1,

    GOLD Frank. I stop reading here.

    #177868
    Blue Skies
    Blue Skies
    Participant
    15661

    looks like this forum thread is super popular.

    MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 286 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.