| Author |
Replies: 39 / Views: 3,034 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
Below is an excerpt from The Creature From Jekyll Island that was a real eye-opener for me. It helps explain why so many politicians are not worried about our Federal debt. Quote: Money would vanish without debt.
It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money-supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence.
That's right, there would not be one penny in circulation -- all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults -- and there would be not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would disappear.
Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s.
Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933.
This is the exchange that followed.
Eccles: We created it. Patman: Out of what? Eccles: Out of the right to issue credit money. Patman: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit? Eccles: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.
It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.
Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:
If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. 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 situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.
With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in debt in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary.
Here is the bottom line from the System's own publications. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia says:
"A large and growing number of analysts, on the other hand, now regard the national debt as something useful, if not an actual blessing . . . [They believe] the national debt need not be reduced at all."
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago adds:
"Debt -- public and private -- is here to stay. It plays an essential role in economic processes . . . What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management." Edited by hockingzig 07/18/2011 09:11 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1450 Posts |
Sorry folks,I messed up the quote thing so just read it as is.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
406 Posts |
Quote: What is required is not the abolition of debt, but its prudent use and intelligent management. This here is the problem. What's going on with the national debt right now is beyond insane. The national debt in 1941 was quite a bit smaller than it is today.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
830 Posts |
Yes, today most of the world's money is debt based issue. But it can be replaced with a non-debt based currency. Abe Lincoln did it, Ben Franklin did it, Thomas Jefferson wanted to do it. Anyone that doesn't understand this needs to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g
Edited by GoThunder 07/18/2011 10:13 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
U.S. currency is not really debt-based. The federal reserve can print it at will. They owe no interest on money that is printed and have no obligation to pay any of it back. Some will argue this is a recent development but, in reality, it has existed since the U.S. started to print paper notes. Paper notes are, by definition, only valuable in the context of some legislative guarantee regardless of what the note states (i.e. "this note may be traded for 1 ounce of Gold" does not make the paper money a gold-equivalent since the U.S. could run out of Gold or decree legislatively that the swap is no longer valid)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
So here is an interesting concept https://www.bitcoin.org. The idea is to use an electronic currency that can only be "minted" at a certain pre-defined rate. The minting speed is bounded by the complexity of a difficult computing problem with an upper bound on the total quantity that can be produced. Amazingly, these bitcoins already have real currency value and can be exchanged at a number of sites.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
830 Posts |
Quote: U.S. currency is not really debt-based. The federal reserve can print it at will. Well its not debt if you're the Federal Reserve, but to everyone else it is debt. So it is the Fed that thinks debt is necessary and good, of course because they are the ones issuing the debt and collecting the interest on it. BTW for those that don't know the Federal Reserve is not the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...serve_System
Edited by GoThunder 07/18/2011 1:20 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1450 Posts |
What QE2 really was,was "monetizing the debt"! By buying US debt in the form of Treasury Bonds,they added dollars to the system equal to the debt bought. That debt still resides on the Fed balance sheet until treasury pays it off by returning dollars back to the Fed(and out of the system). The money for TARP came from debt produced by the vote of Congress and that debt was also bought by the Fed,at least as I understand it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2661 Posts |
I am still dumbfounded by all this. Up until today I had no debt, borrowed 5K because it was a lower interest rate that what I am getting on my money so it made sense. But anyway, since I had no debt I was able to accumulate wealth at a faster rate. If I turned all my assets into cash and buried it in my back yard, then all the worlds debt was paid off, according to this I would then be the richest man in the world. So tell me again how there would be no money left?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
597 Posts |
were missing the point here! that point is interest they get to collect interest on $ they print out of thin air! if congress would take the job of printing our $ then loaned it interest free think just think of where weed be right now! no interst home loans car loans heck a home would be paid of in 6 or 7 years we would really be the richest country in the world.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10034 Posts |
Quote:
If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. 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. I disagree with this statement. It sounds to me like they are trying to invent a way to make zero-backed currency seem as good as gold-backed currency by using complicated, illogical twists in their wording. To me, this quote is saying that if everyone was paid off, the value "behind" every dollar is gone -- sort of like if in a gold-backed society all the gold in the world suddenly evaporated - poof - no value to any gold certificates anymore. Yes, the physical paper might actually be deemed worthless in a fully-paid-debt situation, but the overall reasoning is ridiculous! Before fiat money was used, the inflation rate and financial crises we have were not so prevalent. I believe if we did go back to money having intrinsic value (such as PMs) then most problems (including debt) can be solved. Before fiat money, if all debt was paid off, then people's COULD have a deposit b/c money WAS still worth something. But... and here is the kicker ... I can see politicians not liking this system b/c a lump of gold is a lump of gold and they would have no power to change its value. In other words, keeping debt allows the powers-that-be to dictate the flow of money (and profit from it). Please tell me if I am wrong. I admit my mind is a little cloudy today anyway and I may have totally missed the point on this quotation. I think the true motivation in a statement like the above is what Bernanke did the other day when he said gold was not money. He knows he does not have the power to "make" gold out of thin air. So he would rather stay on the fiat system where he can make money out of thin air.
How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: The national debt in 1941 was quite a bit smaller than it is today. Yes, it was... and also in 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1991. It was not until around 1996 that it really started to take off. Quote: It helps explain why so many politicians are not worried about our Federal debt. Considering that most politicians are about 2 cans shy of a 6-pack, this does not encourage me. Besides... I've already heard that "debt is good" puckky from my wife and she did NOT sell me on the idea. Besides, the premise is ridiculous on its face. If all debt is paid back, money would cease to exist? Hardly. If all debt were to be repaid, the former debt holders would be flush with cash and they would spend it right back into the economy... just like everyone else does.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1150 Posts |
If the powers that be can't control it, they don't like it.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:So here is an interesting concept https://www.bitcoin.org. Didn't bitcoinage undergo about a billion to one devaluation a couple weeks ago, when someone managed to steal the equivalent of $500,000 worth?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3592 Posts |
Quote: I disagree with this statement. It sounds to me like they are trying to invent a way to make zero-backed currency seem as good as gold-backed currency by using complicated, illogical twists in their wording And I agree with this statement...the powers that be are still trying to feed us this BS as we see today when they try to convince us we need more debt to pay our debts.And people are buying it 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1450 Posts |
Just so you all know,I do not think debt is good or necessary! This statement was shown to help folks understand why the messed up monetary policies we are seeing come to be. It seems to me that if you work,you produce wealth! If you live within your means(stay out of debt)you accumulate wealth. Our government apparently believes you gain wealth by borrowing. Sad part is,it is the wealth that WE have produced that they are STEALING with monetary and fiscal policy,to give to their friends and allies who produce no wealth hence a policy of"redistribution of wealth".
|
| |
Replies: 39 / Views: 3,034 |