I am way behind in my reading and am just reading the list messages from the 
last week so I am sure that everybody has formed their opinions and do not need 
me to confuse things.
But I am going to make a few observations anyway:

First; "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The Federal Reserve System is a central bank setup by Congress to service and 
control the banking system. It is not a private corporation with private, or 
any, shareholders. The Fed manages the money supply, but there would still be a 
money supply even if there was no Fed. Except the money supply (volume) size 
would not be managed at all. I am not sure about your reference about new money 
as debt, but if you look at the definitions of M1, M2, and M3 you will see that 
most money is sort of debt. 

Here is how it works, and it does not matter if you have paper currency or use 
gold and silver coins. You get some currency, or a check, or dig some silver 
out of the ground. You take it and deposit it in a local bank because you do 
not want to carry it around. The bank takes some of your deposit and loans (a 
debt) to some one who needs it as operating funds in his growing business. That 
person deposits his check in his bank, and that bank loans some that deposit 
out. And so on and so forth.

As long as you have banks taking deposits and making loans, most of the money 
supply will not be in the form of currency, or gold and silver. If I remember 
correctly, only about 5 to 20% of the money supply is in the form of currency, 
and that is only because the Fed tells the banks that they have to hold back a 
higher percentage of their deposits as reserves than they would normally.

If you want to see what economic conditions would be like without the Fed, then 
go back and read the economic history before the Fed was created. Congress did 
not create the Fed and give it as much independence as they did because the 
banking system and economy were peaches and cream. Congress passes a lot of 
laws during any session so it may have been coincidence or not. You would have 
to look at the legislative history and the problems Congress was addressing 
before linking the Fed to the income tax.

Managing the money supply is not an easy task. The economist Milton Friedman 
suggested decades ago that the Fed should program a computer to manage the 
money supply with steady growth. But he never came up with a program, and I 
doubt there is a computer large enough to run it if he did. You are dealing 
with only partially correct information after the fact. The problem the Fed has 
is that its job of TRYING to guide the economy is like piloting a raft of 
barges up a river in the fog. You can not see ahead of the lead barge, you can 
only see the banks on either side, and then only partially. Try to get a 
computer program to do that.

Guernsey and China are not very good examples to support any economic theory. 
Guernsey has what population? May be a couple thousand people, and then only 
during tourist season? China may not be a pure Communist state, but they are a 
single party oligarchy with a semi-controlled economy. The State still owns a 
very large percentage of all the companies. They have been holding the value of 
the Yuan LOWER (undervalued) than market to push exports and reduce imports. 
And considering the systemic corruption through out the government and 
government controlled companies, I would not classify them as a free and open 
market. Except may be for the market in influence and bribes.

If the comments I have read in this thread are an accurate representation of 
the book's content, then I have another book I can skip. Besides, I have 
projects lined up until a year after I am dead.

________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason C
Sent: Friday, 27 June, 2008 12:10
To: 'Tony Cooper'; Jim Wilson
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NPC: NMC: Oil futures bidded up by the Hedge Funds. And 
aboutthemonetary system...

I just saw this reply in my spam box ... *&^%$#  POS Yahoo spam filter.

Jim,

All of your comments are addressed very well in the book.

The argument of getting a private corporation / central bank like the Fed to 
create money to loan to government, instead of the government issuing its own 
money and owing it to noone, in order to "control" gov't spending, ignores the 
fact that gov't is effectively issued a blank check by the Fed anyway; both 
methods are inflationary, if more money is issued than that which covers 
economic growth.  (Important concept  - inflation is caused by an increase in 
the money supply that is greater than the increase in the sum total economic 
output.  The past 4 years the Fed has expanded the money supply at 
unprecedented rates)

Don't get me wrong, gov't spends waaaaaaay too much, however, realize that over 
HALF of what we pay in Federal income taxes, goes to servicing the INTEREST 
alone on the gov't's debt to the Fed, which created the money out of nothing.

The most pernicious thing about our DEBT-BASED fiat currency system, is that:  

ALL NEW MONEY that is created is a DEBT; the money newly created does NOT 
include that to cover the INTEREST payments.  The interest payments will have 
to come from SOMEONE ELSE taking out a loan.  This is a mathematical paradox, 
which guarantees that the only way for the system to keep going is EVER 
INCREASING DEBT.  The net effect of this is that ALL MONEY in circulation is 
gradually replaced by DEBT. This explains the perpetually rising debt.  At the 
rate we are going, by 2012 or so, we will need to be taxed at 65% JUST to pay 
INTEREST on the Federal debt... mostly on money printed by the Fed.  It is NO 
COINCIDENCE that the Income Tax was passed THE SAME YEAR as the Federal Reserve 
Act (1913) - it is part of its design.

A debt based fiat currency system, is an INHERENTLY UNSTABLE SYSTEM, leading to 
BOOM AND BUST CYCLES.  Boom and bust economic cycles are NOT natural, they are 
simply a result of having a debt based fiat currency system.  Note how Guernsey 
and China have not had busts.

The above paradox is called "the impossible contract" by the book's author.  It 
is described but not named, in the following 45 minute cartoon slideshow:
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

and in the following allegorical story:
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html

A blogger started calling it "The Compound Interest Paradox", and describes it 
in a 7 part post:
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2008/06/compound-interest-paradox-revisited.html

----------------

re: China's yuan being "overvalued"... it is a nation's sovereign right to 
choose what their exchange rate should be.  This is not to be confused with the 
desire "free market" ... 
BTW China is NOT communist anymore - they have way more capitalistic tendencies 
than, say, India.  I base this on conversations with guys who have done 
business in both countries.

Letting a currency "float", allows it to be attacked by the Hedge Funds (yes, 
the same guys
 who bidded up oil futures), which have been part of several concerted efforts 
to wage "economic war" on currencies.  Among their victims are Thailand, 
Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and so on.  Here is a chapter describing 
it, from the Web of Debt book:

"The Tequila Trap"
http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/chapter-22.php


Cheers,
Jason


--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: NPC: NMC: Oil futures bidded up by the Hedge Funds. And about 
themonetary system...
To: "'Jason C'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Tony Cooper'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 2:04 PM
Jason,
       Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. 
        
       I'm anything but an economics guy, and I understand why you are against 
the gov't paying interest on it's own money, but it seems to me that that acts 
as a 2nd natural check against the government devaluing it's own currency when 
it puts more money into circulation.  I know nothing of Guernsey , except that 
I just found it is 31 sq. miles, and has no defense budget -so it may not be a 
good example for a large government; it also a 45 million pound, and growing, 
fiscal "black hole". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey )
        
       With regard to China, economists the world over have been complaining 
that the yuan is artificially propped up to avoid inflation and keep China's 
competitive advantage of low cost production and bring foreign currency - like 
the USD - into the country.
 
       Now, with the shrinking of the globe enabling their own economic engine 
to run hotter, their currency will increase in value, and that "artificial" 
holding should be required less, but in any case, I fail to see where it can't 
be honestly argued that the currency in the communist state is subject to the 
same economic forces that drive most currencies.
        
       The reason I likened it to a perpetual motion machine is that it seems 
to me that the natural tendency for governments, like people, is to spend more 
and more and when you run out you get more to spend by borrowing or, in this 
case, printing more.  Since either of these devalues the money, left unchecked, 
it's a runaway train.
        
       Finally, don't misunderstand that I like the idea of the government 
paying interest to the Federal Reserve but I also partially disagree with your 
statement that "This [interest] explains the spiraling Federal debt".  I agree 
that the interest is a large part of it, but like my analogy of the everyday 
consumer, the government's real problem is that it spent, and continues to 
spend, more than it can afford, and now it owes it's life to the "credit card 
company" - the Federal Reserve.
 
Jim
 
________________________________________
From: Jason C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:14 PM
To: Jim Wilson; 'Tony Cooper'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NPC: NMC: Oil futures bidded up by the Hedge Funds. And about 
themonetary system...
 
LOL not quite.  I don't have time at the moment to type a more detailed 
response, but you can read parts of the book here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=ILMGrEC524UC&dq=%22web+of+debt%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=xDrvE4l5UI&sig=gqGEIbh2IwrRNd4EGgtYSTDAPVU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

  and here:

http://webofdebt.com  (click the free chapters on the right upper side of the 
page)

The book is extensively referenced, and I tried checking out some of the 
references...

Apparently the governments of the island nation of Guernsey, and China , are 
both issuing their own currency, and thus does not need to go into debt.  
Guernsey and China 's governments, do NOT have a public debt.  Guernsey has 
been doing this for centuries now.  They have a flat 20% income tax, no 
inheritance tax, no capital gains tax...

Passing on the power of "seignorage" (gov't creating its own money), to a 
privately owned central bank such as the Federal Reserve, which then charges 
interest on it, seems particularly odious to me.  This explains the spiraling 
Federal debt.  At the rate we're going, taxes will have to go to 65% JUST to 
pay the INTEREST ALONE on this debt, interest on money created out of thin air.



Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now were back to "perpetual motion" - it works just as well with currency as it 
does machinery. 
 
________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Cooper
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Jason C
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: NPC: NMC: Oil futures bidded up by the Hedge Funds. And about 
themonetary system...
 
"This begs the question:  Why doesn't government create its own money for its 
own expenses (called "non-debt based fiat currency"), instead of giving the 
power to create money to a private corporation (i.e. the Federal Reserve), 
which collects interest on it?"

IIRC my history correctly... Napoleon tried to do just that.... 


Jason C wrote: 
No comments on the links I sent, eh?


Jason C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
Please, enough partisan talk - the Republicrats are bowling on the same team, 
and they're creaming us, on the other team.

I agree with the petition.  However, the MAIN reason oil prices are going up is 
the HEDGE FUNDS run by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan 
Chase.  Why are they doing it?

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2008/0502.html

--QUOTE--
"today's oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a 
handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have 
any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that 
set physical oil prices in this strange new world of "paper oil." "


BTW the amount of capital the above top 4 hedge funds have is on the order of 
EIGHT years of the USA 's economic output.  Yes, EIGHT.

Interestingly the same companies that own these hedge funds, are the same top 
corporate contributors to O-bomb-uh and McSame.  Just look at Obama's top 10 
list - in there are  Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan 
Chase.  He ain't gonna turn his back on them:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Now look at McSame:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424

Same four hedge fund companies.


To help you understand the hedge funds and the rest of the financial cartel, 
read this book.  It was a REAL eye opener for me (I used to think the gold 
standard was a panacea, for instance):

http://webofdebt.com


Wonderful allusions to "The Wizard of Oz".  It's a stunningly good book which 
goes into the lots of historical detail of money and money politics, fiat 
currencies and the gold standard, from 5,000 years ago, through Europe's middle 
ages, and the birth of the USA to the present, including the present subprime 
mortgage mess which has the economy teetering on a precipice, as well as the 
currency speculation attacks by the same Hedge Funds on the Asian "tigers" in 
the 90s (Thai Baht currency crisis), and the attacks on the Mexico and Brazil 
in the 70s and 80s.

The central banks create money out of nothing (aka "fiat" money), and LOAN it 
to government, expecting to be repaid WITH interest(!). (this is called "debt 
based fiat currency")   This is done via "monetizing the debt" by the Fed. The 
commercial banks do the same to consumers and corporations via "Fractional 
reserve banking". This system was invented several hundred years ago in Europe 
, and was one of the causes of the American Revolution.  This system is the 
reason for the spiralling unpayable debt of the federal government today.

The financial corporations that got rich off of this back then are still alive 
and well today.  The ramifications of this system (debt based fiat currency) 
are well explained in the book.  This begs the question:  Why doesn't 
government create its own money for its own expenses (called "non-debt based 
fiat currency"), instead of giving the power to create money to a private 
corporation (i.e. the Federal Reserve), which collects interest on it?  

Several alternate fiat systems and asset backed currencies, and banking models, 
and attempts at such, are discussed in the book. 

Caution: if you're like me, a voracious reader, you can't put this book down.


  
  

________________________________________

  
  
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
  
 
 

_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower

Reply via email to