Kucinich has gone insane

[jonnycsd]

deleted

[jonnycsd]

[quote=briansd1]Right, socialist is the wrong word.

I was using that word in the context of how many Americans use it to refer to the Soviet Union and North Korea.[/quote]

I think you’re looking for the word “communist”. Communism is a political construct that has one party (the Communist party) and tends to aggregate opinion in a tightly controlled totalitarian way. Communism and socialism have been associated since Marx was around, and lots of people use the terms interchangeably. They do have different meanings – China is recently demonstrating that you can have a communist political system paired with a capitalist economic system.

Socialism is an economic construct that is consistent with democracy – like what they do in Sweden and Norway, and IMHO, unfortunately, to an ever greater degree right here in the USA. Basically it means the government rather than private business controls and directs prices, production and investment.

In neither of these systems do the “grunts” ever really have control of the equipment. That only happens to entrepreneurs in a capitalistic democracy. Think owner-operator truckers, cabbies, small farmers, handyman, yardman, accountant, attorneys, and yes, until recently, even medical doctors.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=briansd1]Right, socialist is the wrong word.

I was using that word in the context of how many Americans use it to refer to the Soviet Union and North Korea.[/quote]

I think you’re looking for the word “communist”. Communism is a political construct that has one party (the Communist party) and tends to aggregate opinion in a tightly controlled totalitarian way. Communism and socialism have been associated since Marx was around, and lots of people use the terms interchangeably. They do have different meanings – China is recently demonstrating that you can have a communist political system paired with a capitalist economic system.

Socialism is an economic construct that is consistent with democracy – like what they do in Sweden and Norway, and IMHO, unfortunately, to an ever greater degree right here in the USA. Basically it means the government rather than private business controls and directs prices, production and investment.

In neither of these systems do the “grunts” ever really have control of the equipment. That only happens to entrepreneurs in a capitalistic democracy. Think owner-operator truckers, cabbies, small farmers, handyman, yardman, accountant, attorneys, and yes, until recently, even medical doctors.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=briansd1]Right, socialist is the wrong word.

I was using that word in the context of how many Americans use it to refer to the Soviet Union and North Korea.[/quote]

I think you’re looking for the word “communist”. Communism is a political construct that has one party (the Communist party) and tends to aggregate opinion in a tightly controlled totalitarian way. Communism and socialism have been associated since Marx was around, and lots of people use the terms interchangeably. They do have different meanings – China is recently demonstrating that you can have a communist political system paired with a capitalist economic system.

Socialism is an economic construct that is consistent with democracy – like what they do in Sweden and Norway, and IMHO, unfortunately, to an ever greater degree right here in the USA. Basically it means the government rather than private business controls and directs prices, production and investment.

In neither of these systems do the “grunts” ever really have control of the equipment. That only happens to entrepreneurs in a capitalistic democracy. Think owner-operator truckers, cabbies, small farmers, handyman, yardman, accountant, attorneys, and yes, until recently, even medical doctors.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=briansd1]Right, socialist is the wrong word.

I was using that word in the context of how many Americans use it to refer to the Soviet Union and North Korea.[/quote]

I think you’re looking for the word “communist”. Communism is a political construct that has one party (the Communist party) and tends to aggregate opinion in a tightly controlled totalitarian way. Communism and socialism have been associated since Marx was around, and lots of people use the terms interchangeably. They do have different meanings – China is recently demonstrating that you can have a communist political system paired with a capitalist economic system.

Socialism is an economic construct that is consistent with democracy – like what they do in Sweden and Norway, and IMHO, unfortunately, to an ever greater degree right here in the USA. Basically it means the government rather than private business controls and directs prices, production and investment.

In neither of these systems do the “grunts” ever really have control of the equipment. That only happens to entrepreneurs in a capitalistic democracy. Think owner-operator truckers, cabbies, small farmers, handyman, yardman, accountant, attorneys, and yes, until recently, even medical doctors.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=briansd1]Right, socialist is the wrong word.

I was using that word in the context of how many Americans use it to refer to the Soviet Union and North Korea.[/quote]

I think you’re looking for the word “communist”. Communism is a political construct that has one party (the Communist party) and tends to aggregate opinion in a tightly controlled totalitarian way. Communism and socialism have been associated since Marx was around, and lots of people use the terms interchangeably. They do have different meanings – China is recently demonstrating that you can have a communist political system paired with a capitalist economic system.

Socialism is an economic construct that is consistent with democracy – like what they do in Sweden and Norway, and IMHO, unfortunately, to an ever greater degree right here in the USA. Basically it means the government rather than private business controls and directs prices, production and investment.

In neither of these systems do the “grunts” ever really have control of the equipment. That only happens to entrepreneurs in a capitalistic democracy. Think owner-operator truckers, cabbies, small farmers, handyman, yardman, accountant, attorneys, and yes, until recently, even medical doctors.

[CA renter]

[quote=jonnycsd]Fractional reserve banking is the ubiquitous practice where banks take in demand deposits and lend out a portion (or fraction) of those deposits to borrowers. The banks are counting on the fact that not everyone will want to withdraw their deposited funds at the same time. Of course this exposes the banks to some degree of risk in the form of a “run on the bank” if too many people want their money at once. Jimmy Stewart explains this scenario elequently in “Its a Wonderful Life”

Eliminating fractional reserve banking would require banks to have a one dollar of cash on hand (not necessarily paper cash) for each dollar deposited in a demand account (i.e. your typical checking or savings account). Loans would only be made based on longer term deposits into the bank (such as CDs).[/quote]

Those of us who oppose fractional reserve lending have no problem with banks keeping demand deposits on hand and lending out only that which is desired to be loaned out by the owner of that money (the depositor).

If we had full reserve banking, the bank could act as a middle-man between those who want to loan money and those who want to borrow it. The duration of the loans would have to be matched with the duration of the deposits (a 5-yr CD matched with a 5-yr loan, for example). Detractors say that this would cause interest rates to rise and restrain “growth,” and I would say that those are both perfectly acceptable and preferable to the boom/bust cycles (and inflation!) we so often have to endure with fractional reserve lending. If rates were high, and leverage were difficult to obtain, people would be much more careful with their money — a very positive outcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=jonnycsd]Fractional reserve banking is the ubiquitous practice where banks take in demand deposits and lend out a portion (or fraction) of those deposits to borrowers. The banks are counting on the fact that not everyone will want to withdraw their deposited funds at the same time. Of course this exposes the banks to some degree of risk in the form of a “run on the bank” if too many people want their money at once. Jimmy Stewart explains this scenario elequently in “Its a Wonderful Life”

Eliminating fractional reserve banking would require banks to have a one dollar of cash on hand (not necessarily paper cash) for each dollar deposited in a demand account (i.e. your typical checking or savings account). Loans would only be made based on longer term deposits into the bank (such as CDs).[/quote]

Those of us who oppose fractional reserve lending have no problem with banks keeping demand deposits on hand and lending out only that which is desired to be loaned out by the owner of that money (the depositor).

If we had full reserve banking, the bank could act as a middle-man between those who want to loan money and those who want to borrow it. The duration of the loans would have to be matched with the duration of the deposits (a 5-yr CD matched with a 5-yr loan, for example). Detractors say that this would cause interest rates to rise and restrain “growth,” and I would say that those are both perfectly acceptable and preferable to the boom/bust cycles (and inflation!) we so often have to endure with fractional reserve lending. If rates were high, and leverage were difficult to obtain, people would be much more careful with their money — a very positive outcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=jonnycsd]Fractional reserve banking is the ubiquitous practice where banks take in demand deposits and lend out a portion (or fraction) of those deposits to borrowers. The banks are counting on the fact that not everyone will want to withdraw their deposited funds at the same time. Of course this exposes the banks to some degree of risk in the form of a “run on the bank” if too many people want their money at once. Jimmy Stewart explains this scenario elequently in “Its a Wonderful Life”

Eliminating fractional reserve banking would require banks to have a one dollar of cash on hand (not necessarily paper cash) for each dollar deposited in a demand account (i.e. your typical checking or savings account). Loans would only be made based on longer term deposits into the bank (such as CDs).[/quote]

Those of us who oppose fractional reserve lending have no problem with banks keeping demand deposits on hand and lending out only that which is desired to be loaned out by the owner of that money (the depositor).

If we had full reserve banking, the bank could act as a middle-man between those who want to loan money and those who want to borrow it. The duration of the loans would have to be matched with the duration of the deposits (a 5-yr CD matched with a 5-yr loan, for example). Detractors say that this would cause interest rates to rise and restrain “growth,” and I would say that those are both perfectly acceptable and preferable to the boom/bust cycles (and inflation!) we so often have to endure with fractional reserve lending. If rates were high, and leverage were difficult to obtain, people would be much more careful with their money — a very positive outcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=jonnycsd]Fractional reserve banking is the ubiquitous practice where banks take in demand deposits and lend out a portion (or fraction) of those deposits to borrowers. The banks are counting on the fact that not everyone will want to withdraw their deposited funds at the same time. Of course this exposes the banks to some degree of risk in the form of a “run on the bank” if too many people want their money at once. Jimmy Stewart explains this scenario elequently in “Its a Wonderful Life”

Eliminating fractional reserve banking would require banks to have a one dollar of cash on hand (not necessarily paper cash) for each dollar deposited in a demand account (i.e. your typical checking or savings account). Loans would only be made based on longer term deposits into the bank (such as CDs).[/quote]

Those of us who oppose fractional reserve lending have no problem with banks keeping demand deposits on hand and lending out only that which is desired to be loaned out by the owner of that money (the depositor).

If we had full reserve banking, the bank could act as a middle-man between those who want to loan money and those who want to borrow it. The duration of the loans would have to be matched with the duration of the deposits (a 5-yr CD matched with a 5-yr loan, for example). Detractors say that this would cause interest rates to rise and restrain “growth,” and I would say that those are both perfectly acceptable and preferable to the boom/bust cycles (and inflation!) we so often have to endure with fractional reserve lending. If rates were high, and leverage were difficult to obtain, people would be much more careful with their money — a very positive outcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=jonnycsd]Fractional reserve banking is the ubiquitous practice where banks take in demand deposits and lend out a portion (or fraction) of those deposits to borrowers. The banks are counting on the fact that not everyone will want to withdraw their deposited funds at the same time. Of course this exposes the banks to some degree of risk in the form of a “run on the bank” if too many people want their money at once. Jimmy Stewart explains this scenario elequently in “Its a Wonderful Life”

Eliminating fractional reserve banking would require banks to have a one dollar of cash on hand (not necessarily paper cash) for each dollar deposited in a demand account (i.e. your typical checking or savings account). Loans would only be made based on longer term deposits into the bank (such as CDs).[/quote]

Those of us who oppose fractional reserve lending have no problem with banks keeping demand deposits on hand and lending out only that which is desired to be loaned out by the owner of that money (the depositor).

If we had full reserve banking, the bank could act as a middle-man between those who want to loan money and those who want to borrow it. The duration of the loans would have to be matched with the duration of the deposits (a 5-yr CD matched with a 5-yr loan, for example). Detractors say that this would cause interest rates to rise and restrain “growth,” and I would say that those are both perfectly acceptable and preferable to the boom/bust cycles (and inflation!) we so often have to endure with fractional reserve lending. If rates were high, and leverage were difficult to obtain, people would be much more careful with their money — a very positive outcome, IMHO.

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]Nationalize the fed. Excellent

Creates new money? A change over forces hidden cash to be explained.

Ends fractional reserve lending? The tea baggers should be thrilled.[/quote]

I should clarify that he wants to ban ALL lending (or at least make lending the sovereign right of the federal government). To quote, “Any person who creates or originates United States money by lending against deposits, through so-called fractional reserve banking, or by any other means, after the effective date shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

So that pretty much means shutting down or nationalizing all banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders, etc. etc.[/quote]

How would that shut down all banks and credit unions?

It clearly states that you can not do lending via the “so called fractional reserve banking”. It doesn’t say you CANT lend!

All that means is they can’t receive 1.00 on deposit and then lend out 6.00 and collect interest on 6 based upon the 1.00 deposit, as the current “fractional lending system allows”.

It might do some good for a bank to take in 1.00 in deposits and only loan out 1.00. It might encourage them to pay depositors more interest to attract more deposits. It might encourage them to be more selective about lending money to only those who might be able to pay it back.

Lax lending destroyed our economy.

Exactly how is revamping a banking industry that has gotten a free ride and screwed the American public, GOING BONKERS?

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]Nationalize the fed. Excellent

Creates new money? A change over forces hidden cash to be explained.

Ends fractional reserve lending? The tea baggers should be thrilled.[/quote]

I should clarify that he wants to ban ALL lending (or at least make lending the sovereign right of the federal government). To quote, “Any person who creates or originates United States money by lending against deposits, through so-called fractional reserve banking, or by any other means, after the effective date shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

So that pretty much means shutting down or nationalizing all banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders, etc. etc.[/quote]

How would that shut down all banks and credit unions?

It clearly states that you can not do lending via the “so called fractional reserve banking”. It doesn’t say you CANT lend!

All that means is they can’t receive 1.00 on deposit and then lend out 6.00 and collect interest on 6 based upon the 1.00 deposit, as the current “fractional lending system allows”.

It might do some good for a bank to take in 1.00 in deposits and only loan out 1.00. It might encourage them to pay depositors more interest to attract more deposits. It might encourage them to be more selective about lending money to only those who might be able to pay it back.

Lax lending destroyed our economy.

Exactly how is revamping a banking industry that has gotten a free ride and screwed the American public, GOING BONKERS?

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]Nationalize the fed. Excellent

Creates new money? A change over forces hidden cash to be explained.

Ends fractional reserve lending? The tea baggers should be thrilled.[/quote]

I should clarify that he wants to ban ALL lending (or at least make lending the sovereign right of the federal government). To quote, “Any person who creates or originates United States money by lending against deposits, through so-called fractional reserve banking, or by any other means, after the effective date shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

So that pretty much means shutting down or nationalizing all banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders, etc. etc.[/quote]

How would that shut down all banks and credit unions?

It clearly states that you can not do lending via the “so called fractional reserve banking”. It doesn’t say you CANT lend!

All that means is they can’t receive 1.00 on deposit and then lend out 6.00 and collect interest on 6 based upon the 1.00 deposit, as the current “fractional lending system allows”.

It might do some good for a bank to take in 1.00 in deposits and only loan out 1.00. It might encourage them to pay depositors more interest to attract more deposits. It might encourage them to be more selective about lending money to only those who might be able to pay it back.

Lax lending destroyed our economy.

Exactly how is revamping a banking industry that has gotten a free ride and screwed the American public, GOING BONKERS?

[sobmaz]

[quote=Eugene][quote=patb]Nationalize the fed. Excellent

Creates new money? A change over forces hidden cash to be explained.

Ends fractional reserve lending? The tea baggers should be thrilled.[/quote]

I should clarify that he wants to ban ALL lending (or at least make lending the sovereign right of the federal government). To quote, “Any person who creates or originates United States money by lending against deposits, through so-called fractional reserve banking, or by any other means, after the effective date shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

So that pretty much means shutting down or nationalizing all banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders, etc. etc.[/quote]

How would that shut down all banks and credit unions?

It clearly states that you can not do lending via the “so called fractional reserve banking”. It doesn’t say you CANT lend!

All that means is they can’t receive 1.00 on deposit and then lend out 6.00 and collect interest on 6 based upon the 1.00 deposit, as the current “fractional lending system allows”.

It might do some good for a bank to take in 1.00 in deposits and only loan out 1.00. It might encourage them to pay depositors more interest to attract more deposits. It might encourage them to be more selective about lending money to only those who might be able to pay it back.

Lax lending destroyed our economy.

Exactly how is revamping a banking industry that has gotten a free ride and screwed the American public, GOING BONKERS?

[Author]

Posts