UndercoverElephant wrote:
Exactly. Stumuzz and Andysir are doing nothing more or less than peddling propaganda designed to prevent people understanding what you've just said. There is absolutely no reason why private banks should be able to lend out "magic money" they have a monopoly over creating. And their wailing about government spending is the equivalent of trying to scare children with tales about monsters under the f*****g bed.
U/E go back a few pages to the discussion about the secret of Oz that I posted a couple of years ago. The whole premise is about the state issuing money without interest.
The whole premise of what?
It's not what I am talking about. Are you referring to the discussion you were having with Steve, which I couldn't be bothered to read?
My point is more basic than that.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
Why should any privately-owned organisation have the right to create money out of nothing and then charge people interest for borrowing it?
WHY???
The propagandists have no answer to this question, so they continually try to turn the debate into something else.
If the best answer you've got is "I'd sooner trust bankers to do this than politicians" then you don't have a case. At least the politicians are answerable at the ballot box. The bankers are accountable to nobody, act entirely in their own interests, and have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with this magical power that they never had any moral justification for having in the first place.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
UndercoverElephant wrote:Why should any privately-owned organisation have the right to create money out of nothing and then charge people interest for borrowing it?
WHY???
I agree. I really am at a loss to understand what you are babbling on about.
UndercoverElephant wrote: if the best answer you've got is "I'd sooner trust bankers to do this than politicians" then you don't have a case.
You are not only making up fictitious propositions, but, very sadly, you seem to be answering them as well. Dear dear.
Anyway, got to dash I've started a new job as manager of Sunderland FC.
biffvernon wrote:Actually the only thing that matters in the end is the nature of the peak-oil downslope. That's why we're here. All else is distraction.
Not sure I follow you, Biff.
Don't worry. I was just being silly. I don't often have time to read posts that are more than half a dozen lines long so haven't read most of the recent discussion.
I guess it's a kind of collateralized corruption instrument. One institution with a big dollop of power might have a high probability of corruption but if you split it between ten then they suddenly get AAA saintly status.
Of course an ever better option would be to split the power further, decentralize and disperse as we have learned to do with so many other powers. This has a couple of problems, the first being that it effectively removes government (and therefore democratic) control of the money supply and places it firmly in the hands of the markets (same is true of full reserve banking). Bit of a problem for Keynsians, but we're not that keen on stimulating growth here, are we?
Power in one place is a sure recipe for corruption.
