1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why the whole banking system is a fraud.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Arc, Feb 21, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Ok, Ok, this is Brit speaking on the subject above for two minutes to a large group. However, just insert or substitute the Federal Reserve for what he calls central banking and overall it is all pretty much true about our banking system too.

    Even if the subject doesn't interest you or sounds dull... it is not! This guy nails it in an articulate highly entertaining rant with sarcastic humor. All in just two minutes.

     
    dsl987, Allene and MemphisMark like this.
  2. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    Absolutely brilliant!
     
  3. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Well he's right. It has become so ingrained that manipulating the interest rate is regarded as the official government means to control the heating or cooling of the economy. Nobody even asks, "Why don't we let the economy regulate itself instead of letting the government get its fingers in it?" We have become used to being treated like sheep. Yep, I know I'm going against Keynes. I believe in a free market, in the law of supply and demand. I think we should just let nature (or the economy) take its course.

    Personally speaking I think it's ridiculous that my money market account gets 0.2 or 0.3 percent interest when even the rate of inflation the government lies about is far more than that. I lose money when it's in my money market account. Stick meet Suzy. I guess the government wants me to invest it or spend it. Well I invested it. Maybe I did my Pavlovian sheep thing and ran to the stock market because the government didn't want my money safe in my money market account.

    Safe? I've always thought that old saying was so apropos, that the only time I feel safe is when Congress isn't in session.

    Our government totally screwed the pooch when we went off the gold standard. Now we have "silver" dollars made of ... what? Plastic and aluminum? Haha, I have some old Japanese coins that are made from aluminum. I bet they're worth more than American coinage.

    BTW gold is really down this week. WTF?
     
  4. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Milton Friedman once made a comment that "It's too bad Keynes died so young and when he did. I am sure he would have spoken against those who follow him."

    Keynes spoke about governments spending more in recessions and less during times of positive economic growth. Too bad those who purport his system speak of spending more in recessions, while not spending less in positive growth times.
     
  5. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    You think of John Maynard Keynes as being the most famous economics authority ever, but my own opinion is that I believe free markets should determine all economics. I resent that anybody but the other party has their fingers in my transactions.
     
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I think you misread me on a frequent basis. I do not think any person is all good or all bad. I do not think every idea a person develops is good or bad. I do not instantly attribute a person's ideas as good or bad based on my approval or disapproval of the person. Every idea can have good or bad elements within the overall idea.

    All that being said, I think Keynes was a head-up-his-ass intellectual. I am much more in the Friedman camp that believes government has three basic functions:
    • Military defense of the nation
    • Enforce contracts between individuals
    • Protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property.
    Government should be a referee in the affairs of individuals, not an active player helping one side or the other, or telling both sides what to do by constantly changing the rules.
     
    Allene and Susan Addams like this.
  7. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Mark, it is you who is misreading me. I agree with all of the above.
     
  8. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    In university, I very much looked forward to my class, Economic 101. I was glad to leave it at its conclusion. IMO the only thing that I learned is on a learned and accurate basis no one understands economics at the macro or national level. (Like the US economy!) Economists reminded me of theologians. Pick the one whose theories light your fire and makes you feel emotionally secure for whatever reason and embrace it. When it comes to economics, the goal isn't "winning" or "losing," it's just to stay in the game.
     
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Which is why we need to observe the micro- level and leave it the hell alone. Every time the government or banks try to "fix" or "nudge" the economy, crazy and unanticipated shit happens.

    Aren't we like that in all aspects of our lives? Economics, Religion, Philosophy, all of the "soft" sciences. We pick what floats our boat and off we go...
     
    Susan Addams likes this.
  10. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Pick your economic theory, base your "understanding of what's happening" on it, see how it works for you. Base your behavior on your beliefs and see how that goes too. But in the end whatever happens happens.

    I just don't like all the government intervention and control. If they're smart about it then negotiating international trade treaties is fine with me. Our government is dealing with foreign governments on a level we have no ability to affect. What I don't like is when the government decides the economy must "heat up" or "cool off." I think the economy should do whatever the sum total of all private transactions causes. We earn the money by working our jobs or running our businesses, we spend it however we want. They're messing with us enough by taxing us. I don't mind government protecting consumers by regulating how much interests lenders may charge.

    What I really hate is the government "protecting" us from ourselves. That's the kind of "eat slowly and chew your food carefully" kind of protection. I'll eat my damned food however I want and if I get indigestion then it's my own damned fault. In the real world I'm talking about things like adding a tax on food items that the government thinks are unhealthy for us. That's interfering in our lives on a personal level that I'm astonished anybody puts up with this.

    It's all about control, I get that. I just can't understand what business the government has in taxing us into using their might to force us into healthy habits. It's the same thing with our personal economic health. Our lives are an aggregate of both bad and good decisions, but it's our lives and our decisions. Yet there the government is, with their thumb on the scales, tipping the scales to get us to do what they want, them meddling in our lives and wanting to control us.

    Jeez, I think I need that rant font again. ;)
     
    Allene likes this.
  11. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    No.
     
  12. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Don't make me get my crowbar to pry it out of you. Please elaborate.
     
  13. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    That works if WE pick what floats our boat. It's when the GOVERNMENT picks how we shall float our boats that gives me a real problem.

    Just why does the government have to decide how fast the economy is growing, when it's getting "too hot" or "too slow" and then put into action governing forces to alter the course of our economy?

    I think the original 13 colonies would be horrified that their uniting and supporting a federal government would result in this! We won our war against King George III only to incorporate imperial policies into a virtual, collective king which dominates us just as effectively as a real imperial king.

    Again showing my defective knowledge I recall that the peons under the feudal system were not allowed to arm themselves. This is a repeating theme in history. Let's look at Japan. Peons there too were forbidden to carry arms. But... they could carry a walking staff. ;) They developed a whole new style of fighting which could be called king fu although there are many forms of it.

    We middle class Americans are the new peons. The liberals want to take away our arms. I just watched a piece on Fox News where the liberals are now attacking the NRA. There can be no doubt that the NRA has been a strong force in supporting our right to bear arms. Yet now many "kiss liberal ass" corporations are now abnegating their NRA discounts, car rental chains, hotel chains...

    The liberals are changing their tactics. The NRA supports our 2nd Amendment rights. Very effectively I might add... Now the liberals are going after the NRA in the hope that they can take down support for 2nd Amendment supporters.

    There is no doubt that the liberals are out to take down our right to own firearms.

    I don't even have to look up the statistics. How many people are killed as a result of drunk drivers vs. how many killed by illegal use of firearms? I'll admit I didn't Google this. It just seems to me to be a whole lot more people have gone down to drunken drivers, so shall we make alcohol illegal? (Um, we tried that, two Constitutional amendments).
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  14. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Mark, no as in no it is not true for all or depending upon the individual, (YMMV,) the majority of the time. However, it is true for a significant segment of our choices.

    Example: Let us say one wants to buy a luxury high-end German car. They like the Audi, BMW, and Mercedes comparable models. They play with the calculator, cost of maintenance, insurance rates, and a variety of other objective measurements. However, a lot of said buyers will buy the one that makes them feel good based on the intangibles or perhaps just one single feature. (One of them has 50 more BHP.) The visceral and strong "need for speed" emotion some have. That car will go 170 MPH and the other two max out at 155. The need for speed emotion trumps all for our hypothetical buyer. (In reality, will they ever go 155-170 MPH?) Possible but not likely.
     
  15. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    A friend used to have a Ford GT. He of course had it insured. It's amusing that his insurance agent (and evidently his insurance company) had never heard of a Ford GT and presumed he meant it was a Ford Mustang GT, and thus it was insured, VIN and everything. It turns out that some years later they recognized their error that there's a Ford GT and a Mustang GT. They increased his rates accordingly but the past years were water under the bridge. :)

    [​IMG]

    He drove it sedately around town on rare occasions and sometimes took it out to the track to open it up. His was an older model but one source states about a recent model: "2017 Ford GT confirmed with 647 horsepower and 216 mph top speed."
     
  16. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    As I am apt to say, "Our forefathers would have been done shooting by now."

    They were called "serfs." and traded almost slave-like conditions, including the royalty in charge of the castle (Duke/Earl/etc.) having the option of sleeping with your wife on your wedding night, for safety within the walls of the castle when Trouble roamed the land.

    Kung Fu and the other Eastern martial arts came about from peasants from having to defend themselves with the farm implements they had, such as the Nunchaku, originally designed as a rice thresher. Japanese Samurai, being nobles, had the power of "Kiri-sute gomen" or "Kill and depart." They could kill peasants for any reason and without penalty.

    You might want to read the book "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. Very enlightening.

    For every gun murder, there are 3-5 deaths from impaired driving. We had one Amendment to authorize the government to prohibit the production or importation of intoxicating beverages (the 18th). The actual law was the Volstead Act. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and all laws pertaining thereto.
     
  17. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Arc,

    I was meaning religion (Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, Jewish, etc), economic viewpoints (Keynesian vs. Friedman) and so on.

    Being able to justify a purchase that you may or may not be able to afford falls under economic freedom and not what I was intending.

    All-in-all, we are presented with a variety of viewpoints on every subject and we generally pick the one we like the best and fits our worldview (YMMV).

    For any who have seen the movie Fahrenheit 451, in the movie all books and reading were banned. In the book, there were books and people did read, however the government decided what was published and they did away with "foolish opinions and viewpoints that did not matter." The books which Montag and his fellow Firemen burned were "not approved." Very 1984-ish and Nazi-esque.
     
  18. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Mark, I knew all that stuff. I just didn't feel like typing it out. It's discussed in many of the medieval fantasy I read before I discovered urban fantasy. I even know the 18th and 21st, just didn't need to impress anybody.

    Oh Mark, you are at least half-way useful. Maybe more. ;) :p

    Actually apart from your chauvinism you are a pretty smart guy.
     
  19. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Sure it happens in many things but I still disagree that it so to the extent you suggest. Emotion dominates or interacts with most of our cognitive or brain functions. But not all and it is just one factor. In some situations, it is the dominant factor...but, again, not all. If it was I would have punched a lot of people I never laid a hand on or even spoke threw a mean word in their face.

    For instance, you list religion. For me, I can say my religious views were and are were arrived at by intellect. Why I am a certain specific type of religion is was not a case of emotionally choosing one over the other. Not in the least.
     
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    90%, at least, of people's religious beliefs were decided by their parents. The percentage that chose any religion based on intellect is obviously close to 0. Ooops, did I say that out loud?
     

Share This Page