The Money Masters – Freaky video

[blahblahblah]

I think that the Federal Reserve is really the best system we have now.

It would be much worse if money were issued by the Treasury. The deficit spending would then be totally out of control.

What alternatives do we seriously have to the Federal Reserve?

You may want to watch the video again more closely. What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! Remember, there was no federal income tax prior to 1913. Currently the interest is paid to a tiny secret group of unbelievably wealthy individuals, many of whom are not citizens of the US. They can use it to purchase our property, they can use it to convert into gold, they can bribe politicians, pay assassins, they can do whatever they please with it. The sums involved are astronomical — it is difficult for ordinary folks like us to imagine the power these people have.

And when in doubt, you can just look at the US Constitution. The power to coin money and regulate its value is reserved for the Legislative Branch. But who reads that musty old document anymore?

Back to work, SLAVES!

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! [/quote]

I think this can work only if the government is disciplined enough to not grow the money supply more than productivity and the amount necessary to facilitate trade. There would be no check on the government.

Then you would end up with a planned economy, not a capitalist system where the “invisible hand” decides the allocation of resources.

Since the government doesn’t have to borrow, it will spend the money into the economy and decide who gets the funds.

The government will also be the lender to private businesses.

That is an interesting concept and perhaps a hybrid system is best.

Students loans used to be issued directly by DOE until the system was privatized.

Since the government now owns Fannie/Freddie, it could issue mortgages directly and cut out the banks (middlemen). Since the government can lend out money at very low rates, it could make the safest loans (say 50% or more down) and let the private banks take on the riskier loans.

We could have a single-payer health care system like Canada and France.

Or we could do as Milton Friedman suggested and let the banks issue their own notes. Let the buyers beware and take the losses if they accept the wrong notes.

I wonder what the more radical conservatives think ought to be done about the money supply. How do we shrink government if we let the Treasury issue currency at will?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! [/quote]

I think this can work only if the government is disciplined enough to not grow the money supply more than productivity and the amount necessary to facilitate trade. There would be no check on the government.

Then you would end up with a planned economy, not a capitalist system where the “invisible hand” decides the allocation of resources.

Since the government doesn’t have to borrow, it will spend the money into the economy and decide who gets the funds.

The government will also be the lender to private businesses.

That is an interesting concept and perhaps a hybrid system is best.

Students loans used to be issued directly by DOE until the system was privatized.

Since the government now owns Fannie/Freddie, it could issue mortgages directly and cut out the banks (middlemen). Since the government can lend out money at very low rates, it could make the safest loans (say 50% or more down) and let the private banks take on the riskier loans.

We could have a single-payer health care system like Canada and France.

Or we could do as Milton Friedman suggested and let the banks issue their own notes. Let the buyers beware and take the losses if they accept the wrong notes.

I wonder what the more radical conservatives think ought to be done about the money supply. How do we shrink government if we let the Treasury issue currency at will?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! [/quote]

I think this can work only if the government is disciplined enough to not grow the money supply more than productivity and the amount necessary to facilitate trade. There would be no check on the government.

Then you would end up with a planned economy, not a capitalist system where the “invisible hand” decides the allocation of resources.

Since the government doesn’t have to borrow, it will spend the money into the economy and decide who gets the funds.

The government will also be the lender to private businesses.

That is an interesting concept and perhaps a hybrid system is best.

Students loans used to be issued directly by DOE until the system was privatized.

Since the government now owns Fannie/Freddie, it could issue mortgages directly and cut out the banks (middlemen). Since the government can lend out money at very low rates, it could make the safest loans (say 50% or more down) and let the private banks take on the riskier loans.

We could have a single-payer health care system like Canada and France.

Or we could do as Milton Friedman suggested and let the banks issue their own notes. Let the buyers beware and take the losses if they accept the wrong notes.

I wonder what the more radical conservatives think ought to be done about the money supply. How do we shrink government if we let the Treasury issue currency at will?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! [/quote]

I think this can work only if the government is disciplined enough to not grow the money supply more than productivity and the amount necessary to facilitate trade. There would be no check on the government.

Then you would end up with a planned economy, not a capitalist system where the “invisible hand” decides the allocation of resources.

Since the government doesn’t have to borrow, it will spend the money into the economy and decide who gets the funds.

The government will also be the lender to private businesses.

That is an interesting concept and perhaps a hybrid system is best.

Students loans used to be issued directly by DOE until the system was privatized.

Since the government now owns Fannie/Freddie, it could issue mortgages directly and cut out the banks (middlemen). Since the government can lend out money at very low rates, it could make the safest loans (say 50% or more down) and let the private banks take on the riskier loans.

We could have a single-payer health care system like Canada and France.

Or we could do as Milton Friedman suggested and let the banks issue their own notes. Let the buyers beware and take the losses if they accept the wrong notes.

I wonder what the more radical conservatives think ought to be done about the money supply. How do we shrink government if we let the Treasury issue currency at will?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]What did the US do prior to 1913? Historically speaking, US government deficit spending has actually been much less when the Treasury issued the currency. And even if the government runs a deficit, the interest is paid to the government, i.e. the people. It can be used to pay national debts, it can be used to build public works, or it can be used to fund current operations allowing taxes to be reduced! [/quote]

I think this can work only if the government is disciplined enough to not grow the money supply more than productivity and the amount necessary to facilitate trade. There would be no check on the government.

Then you would end up with a planned economy, not a capitalist system where the “invisible hand” decides the allocation of resources.

Since the government doesn’t have to borrow, it will spend the money into the economy and decide who gets the funds.

The government will also be the lender to private businesses.

That is an interesting concept and perhaps a hybrid system is best.

Students loans used to be issued directly by DOE until the system was privatized.

Since the government now owns Fannie/Freddie, it could issue mortgages directly and cut out the banks (middlemen). Since the government can lend out money at very low rates, it could make the safest loans (say 50% or more down) and let the private banks take on the riskier loans.

We could have a single-payer health care system like Canada and France.

Or we could do as Milton Friedman suggested and let the banks issue their own notes. Let the buyers beware and take the losses if they accept the wrong notes.

I wonder what the more radical conservatives think ought to be done about the money supply. How do we shrink government if we let the Treasury issue currency at will?

[Author]

Posts