Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Apparently, much of the freemen, conspiraloon, zeitgeist, occupy, etc fraternity are now going on about Agenda 21 being a new global conspiracy, A21 could have been a very positive development from Rio 92: lots of environmentalists effectively used its localist approch to make demnands on councils, etc, where do they get these ideas from...
I don't know about any conspiracy theories, or much about Agenda 21 generally, but the only time I have ever come across it is the couple of miles worth of canal from central Oxford north which are Agenda 21 moorings. A bunch of eco-hippy types persuaded British Waterways and the council to let them have amazingly cheap mooring permits for the area to create a sustainable living community.

Very few of the originals are left. They sold their boats with a £20-30k premium on the price because they had ridiculously cheap permits for living in the centre of Oxford. It's very hard to get those permits back from people who have paid a huge premium for their boats precisely because they had cheap permits attached, so they are having to be gradually reclaimed by very strict enforcement of licensing rules about rubbish disposal etc. These are, of course, being snapped up at auction by the kind of people who can afford over £4k/year to rent a mooring.

Fucking hippies. :mad:
 
This weekend's Morning Star has a cartoon by Leon Kuhn on page 13 showing Marx writing these words on a blackboard:
Banks in capitalist society are institutions for the systematic robbery of the people.
I can't find this quote anywhere in Marx and suspect it is a fabrication or an urban myth. After all, Marx concentrated on analysing production in capitalist society and said that that's where the robbery of workers takes place and by employers not banks. The quote also suggests that banks would have a different role in a non-capitalist society whereas Marx made it clear that there would be no room for banks in his conception of a socialist or communist society.

I could be wrong about the quote but, if it is genuine, does anyone know where he wrote it? Or who else it's from?
 
I'd like to remember who i heard point this out but it goes something like this:

The current global financial crisis wasn't cause by a physical thing such as:

A famine affecting the global food supply.
A natural disaster destroying economic activity.
A war draining the resources of several economies.

The day before and the day after the financial world when tits up the planet and its people were producing the same number of real things (food, minerals, products, services) than they had been before.
What happened is that the numbers bankers use to keep score got fucked up by the mortgages / credit nonsense that went on and then the world reacted to these abstracts by changing its economic behaviour. Slowing construction, consumer spending and confidence, shedding jobs etc.

It is a nonsense how we run things this way.
 
Are you for real? Do you know what even 1% on every pound in circulation adds up to per year?

And do you know what happens if you can't pay back your loan? Yep, the bank gets to take things of real value - your stuff, your house maybe.



It's their system silly... they get to create money out of thin air (by loaning it), charge interest, when the loan is paid back the new money is destroyed, but the bank has done very nicely out of it. The risk is that "a run on the bank" can get them at any time, because at any time they might have far greater liabilities than cash to fulfil them with. So our lovely governments guarantee against that - this alone tells you that our governments are bought and paid for - these guarantees are worth huge sums! It's like a poker player that gets to gamble so he usually makes a profit but in the event he gets caught, the town has to pay for it. It's a horrendous scam, and it's come about because hardly anyone understood what they were up to, and most of those got bought off along the way.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford
I have usually joined in in the ban Jazzz calls, and have tended to agree that he is more a innocent among wolves than an anti Semitic troll. However after pages of being shown that his pals are racists and fascists, he supports an argument that there is a conspiracy in banking by quoting with approval one of the last century's most notorious anti Semites.
There is no doubt in my mind, he is undoubtedly openly declaring himself proud to be a racist.
 
...
The current global financial crisis wasn't cause by a physical thing such as:...
But there were causes in the "real economy" from accounts I've seen, going right back to the oil crisis of the '70s and subsequent shifting of the crisis from place to place or sector to sector. Not my area of expertise and haven't got the accounts in front of me, but can dig them up if needed; any way, point is that the particualr fiscal events were themselves merely a symptom which is why they don't seem to be a "real" cause.
 
Not only one of the world's most notorious anti-semites but he hated unions and workers as well, not surprising when you consider who he was. It's not surprising you consider this shit normal when you get people who quote from this sort of stuff daily in the sort of circles you hang round in.

Hitler kept a copy of Ford's book "The International Jew - The World's Foremost Problem" by his bed ffs. He also paid for several print runs of the Protocols and was key in getting that text distributed as widely in the USA and abroad as possible.
 
JimW - I'm no expert either (guess that's the difference between us and Jazzz - he's an expert after watching a couple of youtube videos after all - love detective is the best on here with this stuff IMO) but I've been doing a fair bit of reading around it lately, found Kliman's book especially good (completely changed the way I see a lot of this stuff too). But I tend to see flaws in the regulation of the banking system as the proximate cause of the crisis, but a more fundamental crisis in capitalism (low rate of profit) as the underlying cause - regulation was loosened in order to facilitate greater felxibility in investment and, to an extent, outright fraud in order to sustain profits at an artificially high rate in order to avoid the crisis happening in the 70s. If that hadn't been done we'd have still had a crisis but it may have occurred at a different time and been actualised in a different way. Fractional banking itself is essential for the smooth (or relatively smooth) running of the modern capitalist system anyway as it allows for savings to circulate around the economy - without that the system would have collapsed long ago - so it's more an expression of the capitalist base economy than some kind of aberration from it.
 
Yep, that's a better way of putting it - they caused the current symptoms of crisis we are seeing, but that crisis is the underlying logic of capital in motion. Always think it's interesting that you get talk about "greedy" bankers but not a discussion of what incentivises and enables, demands even, this type of accumulation; cod appeals to "human nature" rather than a look at social dynamics.
 
The gold standard would effectively put us in the same position as the Eurozone countries: unable to print our own money, aka fucked.

Things were way less stable on the gold standard than they are now. The NYT has unfortunately worked out that people were just deleting their cookies to get around the paywall so I can't access the article, but I think it might be this one: Golden Instability
 
If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.
 
If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.
I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.
 
If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.

Aside from the problems with lack of flexibility and so on (which are the major problem with the GS - and a big part of the reason why it was abandoned in the first place) it would probably artificially inflate the price of gold, causing all kinds of problems for industries that use it - not just jewelery etc but also electronics and so on.

But the big thing would be lack of fiscal flexibility. When people are saving, not investing etc. that money goes out of circulation (doubly so if you're abandoning fractional banking, as savings could not be lent out) so one of the most effective means governments have of overcoming this is by issuing new money to kind of pump prime the economy. They wouldn't be able to do that under the gold standard unless they went out and bought more gold, and thinking about it that would kind of defy the object since they'd be spending £x on gold, presumably from overseas, to buy enough gold to back the printing of £x of new money - so they wouldn't gain anything anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymu
If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.
It's commodity fetishism. Pure and simple.
I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.
There's still tones of gold stored in London. Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Bank of Nova Scotia and Société Générale set the international gold price.
 
I'm surprised currency cranks and peak oil doomers haven't got together and synthesised their mentalism into an argument for oil backed currency. Probably make more sense than gold in the modern economy but I don't know how it could work and it would still fuck the economy.

Edit: I'm not dismissing peak oil, it's a very serious and shit yourself scary issue but the uber doomers do seem to speak with the same kind of certainty, about things they can't possibly know for sure, as do conspiraloons.
 
I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.
Plus having very little room for manoeuvre when the shit hits the fan.

No pretty graphs, but this article gives a decent explanation of the economics of the gold standard (well referenced to external sources) and the politics behind calls to bring it back:

The gold standard delusion

So why is the gold standard a bad idea? Economist Robert Samuelson has a good summary here, but by far the most important thing to understand is that adhering to the gold standard severely limits government flexibility in responding to what’s actually happening, economically, in the world. The business cycle goes up and down, recessions — and crashes — come and go, and over time, governments and economists have determined that a mix of fiscal and monetary policy can ameliorate the harshest effects of those zigs and zags.

Economist Barry Eichengreen has famously pointed out that the countries that were the first to abandon the gold standard in the Great Depression were the first to recover. Those who continued to stay on the gold standard were forced to keep interest rate high in order to maintain their currency’s gold-pegged value. But high interest rates are bad medicine during a recessionary economy. They just make things worse.

A good current example of what happens when you can’t revalue your currency according to the exigencies of the economic climate is offered by Greece. For all intents and purposes, Greece is on the gold standard, aka the euro. It has no executive power to change the value at which its goods and services are sold on the common market. If the drachma still existed, Greece could go through a devaluation that would make Greek products cheaper and more attractive to the outside world, which would in turn boost exports and jobs and allow the economy to grow. Without that option, Greece is stuck with high unemployment and a shrinking economy. Nobody wants to be Greece. Adherence to the gold standard without regard to global economic conditions makes us all Greece.

[continues ...]


And some vicarious Krugman to keep butcher's happy ;)
"Under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933," Krugman wrote. "Oh, wait."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/paul-krugman-gold-standard_n_1832767.html
 
I have usually joined in in the ban Jazzz calls, and have tended to agree that he is more a innocent among wolves than an anti Semitic troll. However after pages of being shown that his pals are racists and fascists, he supports an argument that there is a conspiracy in banking by quoting with approval one of the last century's most notorious anti Semites.
There is no doubt in my mind, he is undoubtedly openly declaring himself proud to be a racist.
oh for god's sake. The point is to try to show that this isn't simply 'the system' - it's one that came about despite many people objecting, and objecting vociferously.

Henry Ford may have been very wrong on social issues, he was right about banking and building motor cars.

We can have this one instead:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson
 
Fractional banking itself is essential for the smooth (or relatively smooth) running of the modern capitalist system anyway as it allows for savings to circulate around the economy - without that the system would have collapsed long ago - so it's more an expression of the capitalist base economy than some kind of aberration from it.
Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say. This simply isn't true. There is no reason to assume that the sum of money in circulation has to be less with full-reserve banking than with fractional. And rather than having private institutions dictate how much money is around it is surely far better to have that under public control.

In case you missed it on the other thread, here's the IMF working paper on full-reserve banking http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf
 
Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say.

There we have it. There cannot be a rartional response because a perfoming clown has got me in his cage.

Did you read that paper jazzz? Answer honestly and promptly.
 
Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say. This simply isn't true. There is no reason to assume that the sum of money in circulation has to be less with full-reserve banking than with fractional. And rather than having private institutions dictate how much money is around it is surely far better to have that under public control.

In case you missed it on the other thread, here's the IMF working paper on full-reserve banking http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

You seem to have forgotten to include the quote from Mein Kampf. And anyway, aren't the IMF part of the Rothschild Zionist NWO conspiracy? Or are they temporarily not involved in that when you (think you) agree with them (but haven't actually bothered reading and digesting the paper)?

I agree that you'd need the same quantity of money in circulation. The point is you wouldn't be able to achieve that without printing new money - how could you possibly when banks can only lend timed deposits?

Anyway, I'm not getting into a debate with you because although I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt since people on here I respect seem to like you irl I now can't escape the conclusion that you're an antisemitic loon.

Also, something about bringing me down to your level then beating me with experience.
 
If ever there was a case study in why youtube 'research' isn't a good thing to base your world view on jazzz is it.
 
Back
Top Bottom