"I've yet to hear a coherent suggestion for reform"

Or how about the fact that the middle class gets poorer and poorer while the upper class get richer and richer?

Is that coherent enough for you?

sorry strat...I suppose I read that wrong... :(

*sigh*

Look, Darwyn, we both know 'End the Fed, Gold Standard Forever!' is something we're going to have to agree to disagree on. I can go into all the reasons it'd be economic suicide, but you're either a) not going to agree that my concerns are valid, or b) agree my concerns are valid, but feel that continuing the current Federal Reserve system will cause greater damage than the consequences of a shift.

Do you feel that is accurate? Seriously, I'm not trying to back you into a rhetorical corner, but while I think you're a great guy, your previous unwillingness to analyze any contrary arguments during that whole Truther debacle before I went on hiatus didn't exactly fill me with a desire to get into an argument with you - not because I don't feel I can back up my position, but because I feel that *no matter what I say*, you're not going to change your views.

Do you feel I am incorrect?

Well, firstly...End the Fed and Gold Standard Forever are two entirely different things. Ending the Fed will end the issuance of public currency at interest. As for the Gold standard, I've never advocated it. Money can be based on whatever is universally agreed upon and in abundance.

Any part of your perception of my unwillingness to analyze contrary arguments is based entirely on not understanding my argument.

You must first understand why issuing public money at interest is a heinous thing. If you don't understand why that is, I would ask you to figure that out.

And you will have a much better understanding of my argument as well as why those people are protesting Wall Street.

But....those people aren't protesting the Fed, nor any of the Fed's actions. I really don't want to get this into a Fed vs. no Fed debate for the same reasons as Strat listed

What are they protesting, goldfinger? global warming?

They are protesting the economic situation, the banks, the government.

I think you all need to read this...

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195434

I wonder what they are saying here...hmmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fV0YjQQzYk&feature=player_embedded

"Fuck the Fed!"

funny I heard

"We're not gonna protest, We're not gonna protest."

And BTW Darwyn Al Qaeda recently said that 9/11 conspiracy theorists like you are nuts and jealous.

Darwyn, I would suggest we can ethier take this to email or a separate thread. Although the protesters has probably shouted a lot of things over the last few weeks, I'm willing to bet 99% would not be pointing the finger at the Fed when it comes to the Root Of All That Is Evil.

Now, IMO most would either be saying "Wall Street!", without any reason conception of what "Wall Street" *is*, or would parrot something they heard someone else say, but that's neither here nor there.

Eliminating fractional reserve banking - which is basically what you are saying when you talk about "money at interest", unless I am grossly misunderstanding your point - would make the credit crunch of '08 look like... I lack the ability to think of a sufficient metaphor, but it'd be just a whole lotta suck.

My thoughts are that Chris Hedges has nailed it -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SKw2j3XOY0

"Now, IMO most would either be saying "Wall Street!", without any reason conception of what "Wall Street" *is*, or would parrot something they heard someone else say, but that's neither here nor there."

But it is here and there...are you suggesting these people are just standing there not knowing what they are protesting for? Cuz,speaking of parroting, that sounds like you've been watching too much TV.

"Eliminating fractional reserve banking - which is basically what you are saying when you talk about "money at interest", unless I am grossly misunderstanding your point"

fractional reserve banking is the bank taking my $1000 deposit and turning it into $10,000 out of thin air. That is not good. But "money at interest" is different. It's creating money and loaning it. So if Congress wants an additional $1million to spend into circulation, they will be charge $1.1 million. That $0.1 million can never be paid off.

so money at interest is not he same as fractional reserve banking, but both are designed to enrich the bankers.

"would make the credit crunch of '08 look like... a whole lotta suck."

being a slave to debt is already a whole lotta suck. It needs to be corrected, regardless of cost (which isn't nearly as harsh as you think it will be unless you are in bed with the bankers). Seems to me, you advocate slavery. I suppose that's the difference between you and I, cuz I hate slavery in all forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KvzuDbG-TQ&list=FLFDh5psHT6wJi6PJoGzG6GQ&index=66

The very essence of the banking industry is to make us slaves to debt.

This is what Occupy Wall Street is all about. Time to break those chains, strat.

Watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLnzMN2_Vd0

posting it again cuz its fucking brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLnzMN2_Vd0

Watch it. this man speaks the truth.

I will have to respond tomorrow, but a quick point: just because I think your theories are wacky doesn't mean I 'advocate slavery', any more than disagreeing with me means you advocate socialism.

If you want to have a debate on this, I'm prepared to discuss my views, but if you're just going to start laying on the fallacies to buttresses your views I'm not going to waste my time.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/05/336590/chicago-protests-we-are-1-percent/

Let them eat cake!

well, strat...perhaps that comment was a bit of a hyperbole. But the logic remains. You will need to decide what you are for or against here because this movement is not going to go away.

Are you for the bankers? Or are you for change?

Unfortunately, there is no middle ground. You must choose.

"just because I think your theories are wacky"

These aren't theories or an opinion. It is truth.

I can only lead you to water. You must drink.

Darwyn - that $.1 million is paid back - in the form of government bonds where the people loan the government money and the government pays it back at interest. It all balances out.

And I'm afraid there is a middle ground in this case. I am for change, but of the sort where we conform to the system and limit it with restrictions. That video of the writer had a lot of truth in it. It is in danger of becoming a feudal-like system. If we break the government free of it, though (through new lobbying and campaign finance laws) I think that corporations will have less of a say in it the political system and we can finally make the necessary reforms to the system. There is a referendum option for a reason.

Also, what the writer was saying is true. Farmers are drastically underpaid in this country. People just have to be prepared to see a doubling in food prices if we raise their wages. I'm all for it, so long as people know in advance that this will cause higher food prices and starve-out the poor.

The false dilemma fallacy aside, I'm not arguing that reform is unneeded or unwelcome. But if you're going to force me to choose between what you believe to be Truth and what common sense and my own background tell me, I'm unlikely to just believe you because you insist you're correct.

"It all balances out."

No, it doesn't. It's very easy to understand. If I establish my own nation and hire a central bank to issue money at interest, I will always owe more than there is money in circulation to pay it back. It's that simple. The loan can never ever be paid back.

"I am for change, but of the sort where we conform to the system"

The system is the problem!

"choose between what you believe to be Truth and what common sense and my own background tell me"

There is only one truth...and you either believe it or not. I can't make you believe.

What does your common sense even say?

"But "money at interest" is different. It's creating money and loaning it. So if Congress wants an additional $1million to spend into circulation, they will be charge $1.1 million. That $0.1 million can never be paid off."

Because obviously, the central bank will never ever lower the monetary base. Sounds legit.

Come on, the system you describe is marginal - usage of discount rate was delegated to the lender of last resort facilities. In reality, most of the monetary base is created by central bank's purchases of government bonds, gold and foreign currency and there is of course no interest involved. Once you want to contract the base, you just resell these assets back. Both types of operations goes on market prices. Even more frequent are the short-term repos and reverse repos I already described and you ignored. There is interest involved but - what a surprise - it goes both ways. To raise the base overnight, FED uses repos and earns interest, if it wishes to lower it it uses reverse repos and pays interest. Hello, Mr. Balance! Since these operations are tightly linked to Federal funds rate, setting the target level higher will result in undershooting it, FED will use reverse repos to contract the base and the miraculously created interest miraculously disappears. Oh, the miracles of undergrad economics.

"People just have to be prepared to see a doubling in food prices if we raise their wages."

speaking of false dilemmas...as I said, you need to read this: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195434 You've been lied to.

ulytau - you aren't seeing the forest through the trees.

If I begin my own nation, I will need a medium of exchange based on an agreed upon unit of value...right? So i ask a central bank to print me some money based on this total value. Say $100,000. I get my $100,000 and spend it into circulation. But the bank hands me a bill for $110,000.

the $10,000 was created out of thin air. it doesn't exist! It cannot be paid back.

Your undergrad economics seems a bit useless if you cannot understand this.

Anything is useless for you if you can't understand the neutrality of money. The stock of money affect only nominal variables - like debts. You cannot change the national budget constraint by printing money, much less by charging interest for doing that. The nominal debt you charged for that will be chipped away by inflation. The debt is a claim on stream of money for which you can buy the goods. You are not interested in paper bills, you want real assets and the only effect the interest will have is income redistribution of those assets.

Since money neutrality is too high-leveled, what if I made your example little less impressive? Maybe more in line with real numbers and on your level? Central bank prints 100 $1 notes and charges the government 5% (not 110%) for that. Government hands over 5 bills and proceed on spending the rest. Happy now?

Quoting that article (which I read the first time you posted it)

"The only solution is to remove the excess leverage from the economy - to get rid of the debt that has been accumulated and force recognition of the fact that not only are many people bankrupt but the financial institutions are as well. Only when the balance sheets on both sides are cleared can the economy recover"

Its not just the bankers fault, and the author clearly states that. Debt it bad, and we all know that. If people stopped acquiring more debt than they could handle, then the banks wouldn't be in shitty financial shape because people would be paying their loans. Also, on the flipside, its the banker's fault for getting greedy and giving loans to too many people.

So really, its no single party's fault, and I do hope you see that.

And under your hypthetical scenario, yes, the money doesn't exist and that will lead to all sorts of problems. But that's not the way our system works.

What that author is arguing (from the linked article) is that we shouldn't pay for what we can't afford. I have a question though. How would you build a skyscraper? A power plant? A factory? A house? Certainly people don't have the cash in-pocket to pay for things. How about starting up a business? Say you want to start a restaurant. Where to get all the silverware and ovens and such from?

"These aren't theories or an opinion. It is truth. "
"There is only one truth...and you either believe it or not. I can't make you believe."

I think the point you are failing to grasp is that you have yet to prove your central postulate. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it so.

"What does your common sense even say?"

My common sense says a lot of things, but the primary thing is says in this case is that Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

You've made a lot of statements, and implied that anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is an idiot. You have yet to back up those statements.

For example, you argue that a mint charging to print bills requires the creation of debt that can never be paid off, but that is simply not true - or to be specific, it is an unwarranted assumption that you've yet to prove.

Ultimately, you appear to be wedded to your beliefs far more tightly than I am. I am willing to consider evidence that what I consider to be 'true' is incorrect. You do not appear to be, and appear to just being calling people morons if they don't agree with you. Am I wrong?

Guys, this is as simple as it gets.

Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There is absolutely NO money in circulation in the United States that did not start out as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal Reserve system.

"it is an unwarranted assumption that you've yet to prove."

Now you are getting ridiculous strat. Please, go look into the Federal Reserve. What proof do you seek? It is in the very definition of the Federal Reserve.

"You do not appear to be, and appear to just being calling people morons if they don't agree with you."

I have called no one a name. but for the life of me, I cannot fathom how you cannot grasp this very simple concept.

Once again, there is not a single dollar in existence that was not a product of an interest bearing loan. that interest is pulled from nowhere, it doesn't exist in the form of a dollar.

I cannot explain this in any more simpler terms. it is what it is. You either get this very simple concept or you look for excuses not to.

I give up.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"

lol...there's nothing extraordinary about any of this. It. is. very. simple.