| Author
|
Russian site has ripped Cytopia.org tracks
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 20, 2007 19:28
|
@ Spindrift: I admire your patience and effort but I'm afraid that you can not fight against someones desire to ignore the obvious. Accepting the facts would lead to accepting the responsibility and that's simply not cool enough for this community.
This is a promised land full of chosen ones and everyone is wearing pink glasses. But nobody will escape the judgment... that's for sure.
  "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 20, 2007 19:31
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 19:06, faxinadu wrote:
this discussion turned from a real life situation into a philosophical debate totally missing the point, that a theft has been commited.
|
|
It's called copyright infringement, and the two is not the same legally nor morally.
Quote:
|
Inner Demon wrote:
Your argument made your point moot because it was hypothetical. You said that Undertow cannot claim that our current system makes us better off than any other system and he agreed because it is self-evident that noone can prove this. So it is a logical fallacy on your part to use in that in order to deduce something. |
|
The point I was making was that you cannot say that the system we have is ok because we supposedly is better of than 1000 years ago.
There is a lot of factors other than how our monetary system works involved there.
Just because I say that doesn't mean that I cannot be of the opinion that the monetary system could be better....not by comparing of our wealth historically, but based on how economics works and conclusions made from that.
And even if we would be considered well off today, does that justify being ripped off constantly?
For me it doesn't matter how much I have, I sure don't like being scammed anyway.
Quote:
|
Seeing as you say you have good support for your opinions I'm interested in hearing the support for that one. |
|
The flow of money is very much controlled by loans today, so yes, with the current system nations, companies and individuals all depend on loans to maintain the standards we are used to.
But if you keep in mind that this money is created out of nowhere by the banks you have to realize that there could be other ways to get that money in circulation also if it was not issued by the banks.
From an inflation perspective it would not matter if someone who needs a house printed the money them self, if the government printed the money and gave it as a grant or if they borrowed it from the bank.
The difference would be that the newly created money would be in the hands of the people instead of the bankers, and that we wouldn't have to pay huge amounts of interest to someone because they have the monopoly of issuing money.
To say that the banking system ensures fairness could not be further from the truth.
The more money you have the more you can lend. If you have little money it's hard to get much of a loan, and if you do the interest will be very high.
If we had a system where the governments controlled the issuing of money not only could there be a system for distributing it that unlike the banks actually took fairness into consideration, but we would not have to make interest bearing loans to poor nations as we do today.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 20, 2007 19:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 19:21, Inner Demon wrote:
Slam dunk!
Some people here  seem to think that whatever we allegedely pay to the alleged bankers that money sits and rots somewhere.
I'm not convinced about the bankers to begin with, but even if that happened to be true, you can be sure that money is being put to productive use that you will benefit from in the end. Its just like paying taxes except you have no say in what they will do with your money but as long as it is reinvested in the economy (which it surely is) it doesn't matter, especially not on a macro scale.
|
|
A lot of the profits from banking is invested in precious metals and stones, bullions, property etc.
Money that is purely used as investment doesn't at all have the same impact on the economy as money in the hands of consumers.
It's quite different from if you would have that money yourself.
You might have used it to buy some music from me, or set up a company that like to hire my services as a developer. Buying up and stockpiling fixed resources on the other hand hardly creates that kind of flow.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 20, 2007 19:44
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 17:12, Inner Demon wrote:
Says one who's virtually had his pants pulled down a few pages ago (and not only in this thread) and still keeps going.
|
|
Please go and practice "how to achieve benefits in 10 steps" together with your hero Undertow. You can practice with your pants down as well
And remember to smile to the camera 
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Inner Demon
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
321
Posted : Jul 21, 2007 18:10
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 19:42, Spindrift wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 19:21, Inner Demon wrote:
Slam dunk!
Some people here seem to think that whatever we allegedely pay to the alleged bankers that money sits and rots somewhere.
I'm not convinced about the bankers to begin with, but even if that happened to be true, you can be sure that money is being put to productive use that you will benefit from in the end. Its just like paying taxes except you have no say in what they will do with your money but as long as it is reinvested in the economy (which it surely is) it doesn't matter, especially not on a macro scale.
|
|
A lot of the profits from banking is invested in precious metals and stones, bullions, property etc.
Money that is purely used as investment doesn't at all have the same impact on the economy as money in the hands of consumers.
It's quite different from if you would have that money yourself.
You might have used it to buy some music from me, or set up a company that like to hire my services as a developer. Buying up and stockpiling fixed resources on the other hand hardly creates that kind of flow.
|
|
You're partially right, it depends on what kind of impact on the economy one is looking for. If you want to be able to carry out serious long-term technologically advanced projects.. let's say for instance constructing the first commercially viable space shuttle (or whatever) money in the hands of consumers will not do any good. The fact is that massive single investments are often needed to make these kind of developments possible and if that particular money had instead been distributed among many people, reaching a consensus on what to do with that money would be impossible.
So although I understand what you mean, I don't think it is quite accurate to categorically say that money is more powerful in the hands of consumers.
In most cases democratic processes are of course desirable, but they are also slow, inefficient and based on compromise, neither of which is helpful in all situations.
Apart from not charging interest (hopefully) I honestly don't see the magic with governments. They very rarely truly respresent the people and if history has shown us anything, governments are probably some of the least trustworthy institutions around, and they are very unpredictable since their agendas are much broader than getting return on investment. Even if your alleged international bankers do exist, I'm not convinced its such a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 09:56
|
Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
This prophecy by a cree woman comes to mind when I think about money. Money was created as a medium to make trade easier. Of course no one at the time (or maybe a certain someone) could forsee what some people would do with money.
Human beings are being enslaved by it every day. A situation is created where some people really have to work their asses off to survive, while others reap the harvest off of that work. It is enslavement. Modern slavery. And it has gotten worse in the last 15 years...
And then there is the money value that has been controlled by a few certain people who have the real power, the big traders that trade in the stock market.
Naturally while some people have to do a lot more to have enough money to survive they will not have enough money to buy simple things for enjoyment, like a cd. So what do they do? They find a way to get the sound for free. Especially in a country like russia, where everything seems really difficult
(I have heard!)
I know it is not very considerate to the person that spent a lot of time creating it, so I am not for it, At the same time a lot of peeps just don't have enough cash to be able to buy it.
Then there is the whole issue with the big companies like apple who came out with the whole burner thingy... I pods, cd burners etc... To an extend they should also be blamed. On the other hand someone could say that they have made the world more free in a sense.
So this kind of argument could go on like this forever.
As I see it, humanity as it is today is not conscious enough to deal without money. People go on making all kinds of fuss for the maximal 90 years or so they have in their lives. They try to gain more power, more money, cheating other people and playing their tricks.
It is like they are in a train station, waiting for a train. While they are in the waiting hall they go crazy and when the train finally comes (death) they only then see the utter stupidity of it all, because all that power and money, and they cannot even take a single cent with them wherever they go when they die.
And until we have wreaked so much havoc on this planet, until it really starts shaking and that economy collapses (and the way it is set up it is bound to collapse)
that whole system is not going to change... maybe soon, but who knows...
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
cytopia
Cytopia.org
Started Topics :
61
Posts :
329
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 13:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-22 09:56, Upavas wrote:
Naturally while some people have to do a lot more to have enough money to survive they will not have enough money to buy simple things for enjoyment, like a cd. So what do they do? They find a way to get the sound for free. Especially in a country like russia, where everything seems really difficult
(I have heard!)
I know it is not very considerate to the person that spent a lot of time creating it, so I am not for it, At the same time a lot of peeps just don't have enough cash to be able to buy it.
|
|
Its true. And it is fine with me if low income people get free music, and software or anything else for that matter.
Its when people who are not low income, use the same source to get the same things for free. In theory it may mean the producer cannot make more and that is a shame.
As a DJ I used to buy about 70% of the music I played, the rest I would 'trade' with friends. I also met some people that copied ALL -in fact they had ALL the music and then wanted to get paid for DJ sets. This kind of thing is corrupt. (And besides that most of them sucked because they didn't 'know' their music, they never had the time to listen to all of it properly.)
I was happy to hear that some party organizers check to see that the DJ's they book use original CD's. Its a good thing, since the DJ is paid XXX EUR for 2 hours or much more depending on name.
Its also a shame if everyone uses only H20 productions software, even once they make money doing live sets. It IS too expensive to buy it as a novice producer, but it makes sense to buy the stuff you use once you have in income. Seems fair no?
Cytopia.org
Psychedelic & Progressive Downloads
Mp3 / WAV CD Quality Downloads
Full Streamed Previews |
|
|
|
Prahlad
Prahlad
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
34
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 13:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-07 18:24, shamantrixx wrote:
So you do on a small scale what coca cola is doing on grand scale. You say you strive to make end of it and that's exactly what qualifies you in the same category with coca cola. As long as you attach the price to your music it forms your music to the extent that it ceases to be art. You expect money - "they" expect certain forms. Voila.. we got genres of music defined by consumers and obeyed by the "artists".
If you can't understand this it's only because you don't want to understand it. Otherwise it's quite straightforward and simple.
|
|
Just started reading this thread and saw this....Man Shamantrix, you have no ide what youre talking about mate, seriously, to say anyone wanting to make a (part) time living from music is the same as coca cola on a smaller scale, what a bunch of bollocks! Its so bizarre I don't even feel like explaing it, what planet do you live on buddy????
www.inspired-sound.com
www.myspace.com/djprahlad
www.myspace.com/setsunatunez |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 13:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-21 18:10, Inner Demon wrote:
You're partially right, it depends on what kind of impact on the economy one is looking for. If you want to be able to carry out serious long-term technologically advanced projects.. let's say for instance constructing the first commercially viable space shuttle (or whatever) money in the hands of consumers will not do any good. The fact is that massive single investments are often needed to make these kind of developments possible and if that particular money had instead been distributed among many people, reaching a consensus on what to do with that money would be impossible.
So although I understand what you mean, I don't think it is quite accurate to categorically say that money is more powerful in the hands of consumers.
In most cases democratic processes are of course desirable, but they are also slow, inefficient and based on compromise, neither of which is helpful in all situations.
Apart from not charging interest (hopefully) I honestly don't see the magic with governments. They very rarely truly respresent the people and if history has shown us anything, governments are probably some of the least trustworthy institutions around, and they are very unpredictable since their agendas are much broader than getting return on investment. Even if your alleged international bankers do exist, I'm not convinced its such a bad thing.
|
|
The fact that a banker that invests in a finite resource will not aid development of any rockets.
One form of investment that they do make but that I didn't mention is of course stocks, which it seems you are talking about.
For sure money invested in stocks that is not as dead as something invested in a finite resource, but it can also not be compared with money in the hand of consumers.
Basically the trading of stocks is just buying and selling ownership of a company.
That act in itself doesn't create more money for the company.
What can happen is that more investors get attracted and hence the value of the company goes up, and they can release funds otherwise tied up.
So in practice it can help the flow in the economy somewhat.
But it's not certain in the same way as money in the hands of consumers.
If I buy a seat on the commercial space craft for cash that's for sure money that will benefit the company making the space craft and hence raise the company's value.
If I instead buy stocks for the same amount it will also raise the value of the company ...but only until I decide to sell my stocks again.
So basically buying stock is like lending the company money and charging interest by taking a share of the profit and not really comparable to actually buying their product.
If the bankers would spend their billions as consumers rather than investors you and undertow would have a point.
I can agree that democracy has major problems and that a totalitarian dictatorship is more effective.
But I'm still surprised to see that you seem to support that kind of system.
You can't seriously mean that you think a few profiteers should run the world because it's effective?
And it is like Upavas say, we are being enslaved.
Sure many of us can afford to buy all sorts of toys like our synths and computers, but does that mean we are better off and have higher quality of life today?
Today very few families can have the mother stay home with the children even if they want to and still afford to eat and pay their rent/loans.
We should really be a lot better of today than we are since technology is doing a lot of the work for us and both women and men work for money, but still for most people working 8hrs/day while leaving the children to be cared for in a kindergarten doesn't leave them with much more than the necessities and maybe a few extra toys.
They don't actually own their house or even their car, it's all from borrowed money.
Living on borrowed money and having the whole family working their asses off to keep up with the debt payments is slavery IMO at least.
It might seem ok to you if you like your job and have a decent surplus in the end of the month after paying your bills, but if the bankers decide to restrict the money supply and your company can't afford to employ you any more and they have to take your house because you cannot keep up with the payments you'll realise that you where not as free as you thought you where.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 16:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-22 13:05, Prahlad wrote:
Its so bizarre I don't even feel like explaing it, what planet do you live on buddy????
|
|
or is it so true that you just can't explain where exactly is the difference?
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 16:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-22 09:56, Upavas wrote:
Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only after the last fish has been caught
Then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
|
|
Beautiful words. Astonishing how those "primitive" people can see further that all of our educated experts running this runaway train.
That reminded me on a letter that chief Seattle responded to the president of America when he offered him to "buy" their land or face the extinction. Letter was written in the year 1854!
Chief Seattle's Letter
"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.
The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother.
If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.
Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.
This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.
One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.
Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.
When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?
We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us.
As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you.
One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all."
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 16:19
|
there are of course major differences
for starters, coca cola is a multinational company - ie based in several different countries, and operating supposedly under the law of all those countries (although, in reality it means they can if they want to operate outside of the law of many countries), where within each country it employs many thousands of people, has its own distribution chains. A psy producer normally has only one studio, or one office and exports from one country - they rely on other distribution chains which they have no control of.
A psy producer is one small part of a chain, wheras coca cola is the chain.
Another major difference is that a psy producer's product is a media type which can be copied. I have never heard of anyone able to conjour up 'free' copies of a coca cola drink. Coca cola deals in physical product, companies like Cytopia are effectively dealing with streams of information.
Shamantrixx - it should be clear that people can argue against your points pretty comfortably - if they choose not too it isn't always because they are not able - maybe its because people are starting to think it is futile to argue with you?
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Prahlad
Prahlad
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
34
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 18:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-22 16:00, shamantrixx wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-22 13:05, Prahlad wrote:
Its so bizarre I don't even feel like explaing it, what planet do you live on buddy????
|
|
or is it so true that you just can't explain where exactly is the difference?
|
|
 Yeah im sure thats it, well actually not, let me reply:
Coca Cola is a world scale consumption product that does you no good, the company behind it is one of the richest companies world wide, driven by greed and maximum profit, specialized in globalisation and explotation, that has a close to monopoly on the beverages market (just ask Pepsi or look at some sales figures).
Now musicians in our scene on the other hand are pretty much passion driven small cottage industry craftsmen, who in most cases never recover their investment, definetely not if you factor time spent in the studio in, and do it for the love of music and making a few people fly on a dancefloor.
You are IMO a raving nutt who will say anything to get attention and it's sad to see how someone who obviously has absolutely no idea what it takes to make music feels he or she has the right to make broad generalizing statements, which are not only false but also thoroughly insulting.
In any case I don't intend to spend any more energy on this, as I'm in the process of establihing my monopoly on the world music scene and make zillions of dollars while I provide people with a product that is detrimental to their health, and exploit my 1000s of employees in the process
Good luck on planet Shamantrix...
Entertaing, but somehow also just plain silly
All the best just the same
Prahlad
Prahlad
www.inspired-sound.com
www.myspace.com/djprahlad
www.myspace.com/setsunatunez |
|
|
|
cytopia
Cytopia.org
Started Topics :
61
Posts :
329
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 18:18
|
word
Cytopia.org
Psychedelic & Progressive Downloads
Mp3 / WAV CD Quality Downloads
Full Streamed Previews |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Jul 22, 2007 19:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-20 18:30, Spindrift wrote:
@Undertow
If you like proof do some research into the matter.I can't be asked to spoon feed you finding a source for every statement I make.
If you are interested in the subject do some research on your own and see if you can find any sources that dispute or confirm the things I'm stating.
|
|
Ok, here is what that video says about fractional reserve banking:
Quote:
|
"Fractional Reserve Bankings: Loaning out many times more money than you have assets in deposit.
...
If 1.000$ of gold is deposited with the bank, they can loan out 10.000$ in paper money and charge interest on that.
...
The practise of loaning out more money then there are reserves is known as fractional banking. Every bank in the US is allowed to loan out at least 10 times more money than they actually have. Thats why they get rich on charging let's say 8% interest. It's not really 8% per year
which is their income, it is really 80%. That's why bank buildings are always the largest in town."
|
|
This is not correct. 10% fractional reserve means that you can lend out ten times your reserve. Not ten times the money deposited in the bank!
If 1000$ is deposited in a bank that needs to keep a 10% fractional reserve, they have to keep 100$ in reserve and can loan out 900$.
These 900$ can then, by the loaner, be redeposited in a bank. Assuming it is the same bank, the bank now has 1900$ in liabilities. The bank can loan out 90% of this which is 1710$ (810$ more than the previous round) these are assets.
We can go for another round and end up with 2710$ in deposits and 2439$ in outstanding loans.
It might look as though the bank is making huge profits here but in reality, as their assets in outstanding loans increase, so do their liabilities in deposits (and they always increase with a ratio of 10 to 9 if the reserve ratio is 1 to 10 so liabilities increase faster than assets!).
If they offer 4% interest on deposits and charge 5% interest in loans, their income is 5% of 2439$ which is 121.95$. Their costs are 4% of 2710$ which is 108.4$. Their actual net profit is thus only 13.55$.
In other words, with a 10% fractional reserve, a bank can earn interest on 9 times the fractional reserve but have to pay interest on 10 times the fractional reserve! The liabilities are always higher than the assets!
The reason it works is because interest rates on loans are higher than interest rates on deposit. Still, the bank need to do a balancing act to make this work. They also have to pay all their other costs (personnel, buildings, heating etc) from this profit.
It really isn't as easy as it might seem at first glance.
Quote:
|
If you are not interested enough to do that I don't know why you bother with the subject.
This is not a court and I have no "burden of proof" whatsoever....you're free to dismiss all I'm saying as bull as much as you want...I couldn't care less.
|
|
Oh come on. Are we having a discussion or not? And, yes I am interested in the subject but it is really up to you to back up your claims.
Quote:
|
But I can help to give you a headstart:
Put "fractional reserve banking" in google.
The first result will be a wikipedia page.
Read the first paragraph:
"Fractional-reserve banking refers to the common banking practice of issuing more money than the bank holds as reserves. Banks in modern economies typically loan their customers many times the sum of the cash reserves that they hold."
|
|
You seem to be misunderstanding what this means in practise. See my explanations above.
Quote:
|
If you "believe" that private bankers is in control over the amount of money in circulation is not really adding much to the discussion....if you bothered to research the issue you would not need to base your arguments on beliefs.
|
|
Wow. I suggest you tell me what is wrong with my explanation of Fractional banking before criticising my research (or lack thereof).
Judging by the way you think fractional banking works, I suspect that your research amounts to having watched that video... Not exactly valid.
Important fact about the control of the Federal Reserve:
Quote:
|
Each privately owned Federal Reserve Bank and each member bank of the Federal Reserve System is subject to oversight by a Board of Governors. The seven members of the board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
|
|
The controlling organ is appointed by the government.
Quote:
|
I thought it was clear in the context that I was referring to the international bankers, but should maybe try to spell everything out more clearly to get that across.
|
|
In other words some mythical group of people to which you attribute all sorts of powers.
Let's put it this way: Every country in the world is based on Fractional Reserve banking, and there are no banks that operate with a Full Reserve system. How likely is it that every nation in the world has been conned by the bankers (including all the nations that don't have privately owned national banks!) and that every single bank in the world is functioning according to some highly immoral system that cons all the general public, every single economist on the planet, every single politician on the planet etc?
Unlikely I would say.
Quote:
|
Funny, because in your next paragraph you agree that that point is moot?
|
|
I don't think I did.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think it is total bullshit to believe that all bankers flourish in maximum chaos and collapsing economies. Sorry but I find that view extremely naive and very far from the truth. |
|
It's quite a fundamental principle of economics, and I find it hard to understand how that could escape anyone that gives it a bit of thought.
|
|
Maximum chaos and collapsing economies is a fundamental principle of economics? I don't think so. There is a huge middle ground between total chaos and unchanging stability.
Quote:
|
Think about it from the perspective of an investor.
If the market you invest in was totally stable, how do you make money from it?
|
|
Return on investment. Anyway, you are now arguing against something I never said: I didn't say it needed to be 100% stable. There is a huge middle ground between maximum chaos and economic collapse and "totally stable"!
When I say that economic collapse isn't good, that does not imply that the exact opposite is either. That is just faulty logic.
Quote:
|
You make the money from investing when it's cheap and selling when it's expensive.
|
|
That is one way of making money. Another way is to manufacture goods and charge for your services and added value. Or you can invest into a company that makes profit from manufacture or whatever.
If you really think the only way to make profit is by buying and selling at different price points, you need to get out more.
Quote:
|
The same principle applies for the banker, but with the difference that they are in control over when it will go up or down.
|
|
Again a huge generalisation. Most banks don't have control over the value of a national currency!
Quote:
|
I'd be very interested to hear what the advantages you see with having the control over issuing of money from people putting their own profit first compared to people putting the public interest first?
|
|
You first need to demonstrate that that is the case. Something you have failed to do throughout this discussion.
Quote:
|
If you do understand what fractional reserve banking means, you will also realise that if the government could issue money instead of having to lend it from private bankers, that would add to theirs as well as the public's wealth.
|
|
Important fact about the Federal Reserve:
Quote:
|
Total capital represents the profit the Fed has earned which comes mostly from the assets they purchase with the deposit and note liabilities they create. Excess capital is then turned over to the Treasury Department and Congress to be included into the Federal Budget as "Miscellaneous Revenue".
|
|
The profit goes to the federal budget!
Quote:
|
Sure you cannot generate infinite amounts of money from nowhere because of inflation...but you might as well print extra money instead of lending it from a banker that anyway creates the money from nowhere.
|
|
It isn't created from nowhere. It is created with government bonds which are backed by taxes.
Quote:
|
It's still the same amount of money created in the end and it doesn't matter who issues it.
|
|
As the profits go to the federal budget, it indeed does not matter.
Quote:
|
Anyway, I'm glad for you that you seem to think we live in such a nice world with a good economical system and control of power...
|
|
You obviously failed to read what I wrote about my views...
Quote:
|
there is a lot of people who don't agree with that view but if you got a nice house and good job I can see why you don't really see any cause for concern right now.
|
|
There is allot of cause for concern but not the way you seem to believe. My dispelling of such myths in no way amounts to me believing that everything is perfect. That is a logical fallacy. (And a very lame way of trying to make a point).
UnderTow |
|
|
|
|
