|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Money As Debt (10/11/2008 1:05:01 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
More conspiracy bullshit from people who don't know what they're talking about.
Fiat currency is not debt.
I guess that is true, as in fiat currency does not have to exist in a debt based system, like we have. But it is true that the system we use that manages the money supply, is based on debt. A small difference, really. As all money in this country is made and manipulated that way, but Fiat money by itself does not have to function that way, it is just really easy to get away with, with fiat money.
Wrong again. A non fiat currency is actually debt since it is inhernetly redeemable for specific quantities of materials.
The US system does not involve issuing debt to back circulating currency. When a holding appreciates in value, and therefore expands the money supply, the US does not create an equal quantity of debt. The very idea is absurd.
No non-fiat money is more like a receipt to redeem what you already own. It's not debt because the paper implies you own that gold already. The government in that roll doesn't own the gold, it is whoever holds the papers gold. You have a weird way of looking at that.
If you give me your car(gold) to store(government holding), your probably going to want some proof that is your car, thus a receipt(or money receipt=dollar). You never sold it to me, and you can pick it up whenever you want. I don't owe you a car, because it isn't my property. I'm just holding it for you. You can trade that reciept to someone else and now it is their car. That isn't debt, and if I sold your car I'd be a criminal. Same thing. There is no debt in that scenario. There can be but that is not an implication of another party holding your valuable assets and giving you a convenient way of trading your assets. Ideally the government would hold gold for people trading it for dollar receipts, or purchase its own gold, or mine its own gold, or whatever, and then that would expand the money supply. Now, I'm beyond thinking that the gold standard is practical anymore. But it isn't debt based.
Personally I'm now think a Fiat based currency flipped upside down, would work better, as in any "new" dollars created by the FED, would simply be equally distributed amongst all citizens on a set schedule, thus reducing the FEDS obvious tendency to over produce new money would no longer benefit banks, and powerful interests, but rather work as sort of a social dividend, I guarantee the dollar would be way more stable than now without that tool. You'd also remove fractional reserve banking, and just distribute the effect to the public, and the banks would simply have to figure out a way to get people to let them hold their money.
When a holding appreciates in value, and therefore expands the money supply, the US does not create an equal quantity of debt.
When a holding appreciates such as real estate, it does not expand the money supply. Why do you think it expands the money supply?
Let's say you have a piece of artwork, that is independently appraised at 1 million dollars, last year it was appraised at 100,000. That did not expand the money supply. Let's say you use that as collateral on a loan, YOU STILL HAVEN'T expanded the money supply, that loan was just diverted, or relied on FED money injections to facilitate. Let's say we have stock and it goes from 1.00 dollar to 3,000,000. You didn't expand the money supply you just shifted it. Let's say you create a new gadget, and you make 50.00 profit per gadget, you still haven't expanded the money supply, just shifted it. And more importantly you gave the fed an opportunity to actually expand the money supply by issuing more high powered money to the banks, to equalize the effect your new "value" would have on the prices of other items.
You can create value, Only the Banks, and the FED can truly expand or contract the money supply. You can shift it. You can create credit worthy paper, but not expand the money supply, you can even trade based on the assumption the FED will expand the money supply to faciliate your added valuations. But you have zero power to expand the money supply. NONE, absolutely, NONE, zero nada. zero.
The point is all that high powered money before it will ever get to you, or the guy you are selling your appreciated assets to, has interest attached to it, somewhere on the tail end of that chain, and that interest can not be escaped on the societal level. You as an individual may escape it, but their is zero possiblity the nation could be debt free entirely as long as the origin of money, is bound to interest upon introduction into the system.
Question: How is money created? Banks, and FED. That's it. All Banks, and the FED, charge interest. You don't create money, you just divert it, or change its allocation, not create it.
Anyway, I tried about 4 different scenarios to explain it, but essentially, value, is totally seperate from the money supply. The FED, essentially, issues more money to the banks, when it perceives more value in the economy. The premise being to stablize pricing on unrelated items.
|
|
|
|
