Kucinich has gone insane

[Anonymous]

Since when was Kucinich sane?

[patb]

[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]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.

[patb]

[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]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.

[patb]

[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]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.

[patb]

[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]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.

[patb]

[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]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.

[patb]

[quote=pri_dk]Since when was Kucinich sane?[/quote]

Kucinich has been more right on things longer then anyone else.

In a crazy world, the sane are madmen.

1) Kucinich fought selling the cleveland power utility. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy but he was right that publically owned utilities are a better model.

2) Kucinich voted against the Iraq and Afghan wars.

3) Kucinich has voted to stop importing oil, so we can stop trading with the enemy.

kucinich thinks the Fed is a threat to american sovereignity.

[patb]

[quote=pri_dk]Since when was Kucinich sane?[/quote]

Kucinich has been more right on things longer then anyone else.

In a crazy world, the sane are madmen.

1) Kucinich fought selling the cleveland power utility. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy but he was right that publically owned utilities are a better model.

2) Kucinich voted against the Iraq and Afghan wars.

3) Kucinich has voted to stop importing oil, so we can stop trading with the enemy.

kucinich thinks the Fed is a threat to american sovereignity.

[patb]

[quote=pri_dk]Since when was Kucinich sane?[/quote]

Kucinich has been more right on things longer then anyone else.

In a crazy world, the sane are madmen.

1) Kucinich fought selling the cleveland power utility. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy but he was right that publically owned utilities are a better model.

2) Kucinich voted against the Iraq and Afghan wars.

3) Kucinich has voted to stop importing oil, so we can stop trading with the enemy.

kucinich thinks the Fed is a threat to american sovereignity.

[patb]

[quote=pri_dk]Since when was Kucinich sane?[/quote]

Kucinich has been more right on things longer then anyone else.

In a crazy world, the sane are madmen.

1) Kucinich fought selling the cleveland power utility. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy but he was right that publically owned utilities are a better model.

2) Kucinich voted against the Iraq and Afghan wars.

3) Kucinich has voted to stop importing oil, so we can stop trading with the enemy.

kucinich thinks the Fed is a threat to american sovereignity.

[patb]

[quote=pri_dk]Since when was Kucinich sane?[/quote]

Kucinich has been more right on things longer then anyone else.

In a crazy world, the sane are madmen.

1) Kucinich fought selling the cleveland power utility. The banks forced the city into bankruptcy but he was right that publically owned utilities are a better model.

2) Kucinich voted against the Iraq and Afghan wars.

3) Kucinich has voted to stop importing oil, so we can stop trading with the enemy.

kucinich thinks the Fed is a threat to american sovereignity.

[Eugene]

[quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?

[Eugene]

[quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?

[Eugene]

[quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?

[Eugene]

[quote=patb]

No it means ending Fractional reserve lending.

There is a difference.

All it is is changing the reserve asset ratio for non-federal banks to 1.[/quote]

If the reserve asset ratio is 1, then non-federal banks will be unable to lend out money, because they have to keep all deposits on hand, no?

Or maybe you mean that companies will only be allowed to lend out of their own capital. But then what’s to stop someone from creating a company that pools investor money and lends it out at interest, in essence, making an end run around the “lending against deposits” rule? People want to get interest on their money, the bill explicitly prohibits banks (“depository institutions”) from paying interest on deposits, even if they could, which they can’t because they have to keep 100% of deposits on hand, and there’s no profit in that. So they will organize these makeshift investor pools. How is that better (or different) from the existing fractional reserve lending system?

[Author]

Posts