Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

I don't think Confucianism acknowledges that distinction.
That's my point really - as I said, it wasn't something they got exercised at the theological level you do and seem to think everyone else has, it was merely a practical issue bar the usual caveats about interpersonal ethics.

So it was loans at interest to the poor that were fine and dandy now?

Got to say, this is sounding pretty weird.
Well, the state offered them; that a self-professed Confucian might have preferred them to charity is my speculation. This has had me reading up on the Discourse on Salt and Iron though, which I'd completely forgotten - early debate about policy where it seems the Confucians were the liberal free-marketeers against the Legalist state interventionists, though seems that could well be the former's habit of venerating whatever the 'Ancients' were supposed to have done (usually spurious but there you go) and thus opposing innovation.
 
That's my point really - as I said, it wasn't something they got exercised at the theological level you do and seem to think everyone else has, it was merely a practical issue bar the usual caveats about interpersonal ethics.

That is interesting. Certainly it makes a dramatic exception from all three monotheistic religions, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Luther, Hegel, Marx... etc.
 
If you'll read the thread you'll see that I do so fully and completely.

In future, you will doubtless find it more convenient to refrain from commenting until you have at least familiarized yourself with the basics of our discussion.
If that's the case (it is not), why did you post something so obviously vacuous as a response at all? I quoted the entirety of your post, so it's not even as if if was an ill-judged aside included as part of a serious point. It was solely intended as a cheap put-down.

I know you know it is vacuous. You're using the kind of overblown language you only ever use when you are trolling. Is this part of the fun for you? Making obviously stupid statements and then pissing yourself laughing when people think you actually mean it?
 
If that's the case (it is not), why did you post something so obviously vacuous as a response at all? I quoted the entirety of your post, so it's not even as if if was an ill-judged aside included as part of a serious point. It was solely intended as a cheap put-down.

It's not really very important in the context of the thread, Frogwoman obviously doesn't think so, and nor do I, so I don't know why you bring it up.
 
I bring it up as one of many examples of your transparently obvious trolling. Nothing to do with the content of the thread, as you well know.
 
I bring it up as one of many examples of your transparently obvious trolling.

Well don't. There is nothing that could possibly be gained thereby. Only a low malice of which I know you to be quite incapable would induce a person to meddle vicariously in affairs of this nature, unless directly concerned in the business.

Also you might wake Delbert.
 
Oh, I wouldn't want you to stop trolling, Dwyer. I'd just hate for people to take you seriously on a thread that didn't need ruining and I seriously object when you descend to bullying.

On this one, you've been quite useful for a change. :cool:
 
It's interesting that the magazine and mass movement (Father Coughlin's Social Justice) Jazzz said had all the answers to our problems had we listened to it in the 1930s also published this kind of stuff:

No it's not really, it's quite irrelevant.

The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill.

Researching him, the internet reveals that he was Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during the depression. Just maybe he knew his stuff and was in a position to spill the beans.

He quoted, in a foreword to Irving Fischer's book 100% money:

"We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon."

Irving Fischer was considered by both the Nobel Prize winning economists Milton Friedman and James Tobin to be "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced".

This is money theory. It is mathematics. One thing I know about mathematics is that race has fuck all to do with it and really you would have to be an idiot to claim otherwise. Hemphill is not right or wrong depending on what race the bankers are. He is right or wrong depending on the maths. And he is right. The fact that your magazine printed something else by another author is here nor there. Even if Hemphill had sympathies with it it doesn't matter.

The extraordinary thing is that apparently on urban75 this is considered "loon" stuff. What that shows is just how fantastically programmed we are. We've been frogs that have been so marvellously boiled we think the current arrangement is 'the system', just the way things are. The way things are is that we've been fantastically ripped off and are slaves on timeshare. In the 1960s when they were designing all those wonderful labour saving machines, washing machines, dishwashers, massive advances in technology for production, etc - they thought, "what are we going to do with all our spare time?". Ha! How many of us can say they can work 20 hours a week and be fine?

It's interesting that the link Jazzz uses to insert further empty nonsense includes the description: 'The macroeconomic statistics hide the reality of life for ordinary Icelanders. Higher taxes, spending cuts and a wave of repossessions have left many distraught.'
It is - as close as we can see it - the anti-banking scenario Jazzz aspires to via the anti-semitic conspiracist ideas.
We are talking about a country that was bankrupt in 2008 with a currency that was worthless. As far as I know, they still have fractional-reserve banking. They've just picked themselves up off the floor remarkably.

The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

Iceland's On-going revolution
 
Thanks to Sihhi for putting me onto Hemphill, the googling of which led to this gem of a page:​
Don't believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney...
 
"It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney...

Except that today of course, deregulation means that banks cannot commit fraud, or indeed do anything else illegal or even wrong. Their word is law.
 
Fuck's sake - this might have been a useful thread, instead it ends up with Jazzz repeating already discredited arguments and people having to point out that books like Mein Kampf and the Protocols aren't credible sources (slight exaggeration but he's getting closer to that every day).

Since the thread is already ruined now, we might as well just get stuck into the pseud troll and the antisemitic loonspud troll.

As you were.
 
No. What stinks is your attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism. That's what's really dangerous.
We have been through this before, but once more... With feeling.
I distrust the term anticapitalist, (not least because it a negative term which Ill describes positivist alternatives to the present society), it is a catch all umbrella which covers such a wide range of viewpoints and pretends that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we are all on the same side. That proponents of ideologys whose inspirations happily slaughtered forerunners of my political tradition, and today publish apologetics for those acts, are really working for the same ideals as me.
Anti capitalist arguments do not in any way mean a progressive agenda, reactionary politics which embrace capitalism raw and unbridled are a relatively new phenomena: fascism, in all its manifestations is anti capitalist, as are the various religious fundamentalist political movements. Anti semitism as a modern 'scientific' theory was deeply anti capitalist.
Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'
 
Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'

You're the anti-semite, because you connect anti-semitism with anti-capitalism.

You therefore connect "the Jews" with capitalism.

I wouldn't want to be connected with capitalism, not now, and certainly not in the future. I don't think it would be good for my health.

And so it is you who are the anti-semite, Herr Pig.
 
I don't think phil's an anti-semite, however i don't really follow the logic of his views on usury. Money doesn't increase in value necessarily (if anything, it decreases in value, £1 twenty years ago is worth far more than £1 today) so how can capitalist relations be interest? When a cashier gives you change at the shop is that usury as well?
 
Translation: "since my entire worldview has just come crashing down around my ears..."

clownpic1.jpg
 
No it's not really, it's quite irrelevant.

The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill.

Researching him, the internet reveals that he was Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during the depression. Just maybe he knew his stuff and was in a position to spill the beans.

You are now openly saying that an openly anti-semitic article from an anti-semite in an anti-semitical magazine of a wider anti-semitical movemt is not not a problem. On the contrary, you now aggressively insist that the author of an article that argues that jews are behind everything and that then engages in mcarthyite jew-baiting (that in fact goes further than mcarthyism ever did by naming names) is someone to be listened to, to be respected and to learnt from.

And why do you say that Hemphill wrote it anyway? There is no correspondent listed? Why have you said that it is Hemphill? You've even messed that most basic of things up.
 
And yet $1 in 20 years most definitely is worth more than $1 today.

No-one ever called capitalism logical.

If i go to the corner shop and buy some fags and pay with a tenner and the guy at the checkout gives me my change is he a usurer phil?
 
Back
Top Bottom