If Greece's currency colaspes

It depends on the specifics of each situation. When a bank lends money to someone who is not creditworthy or was creditworthy but subsequently loses their ability to pay, and the loan subsequently goes into default, it is the fault/obligation of the bank of course and they should take the hit. In this case, there are bankruptcy laws to give the individual a fresh start. If the person runs up a credit card balance and refuses to pay even if they are able, there are legal remedies for the bank to pursue. But there is no law requiring indentured servitude or imprisonment until the loan is repaid. The same goes for nations. The biggest absurdity in the world is for someone to believe that the population of an entire nation should be treated worse than the individual citizens of that nation would be under similar circumstances just because the loss and economic pain is on a larger scale. The banks need to take the hit and refuse to extend additional credit if that is their choice. In the case of Greece, the banks should bargain to restructure the existing loans and take a hit for the difference. The whold idea that the IMF should step in, reimburse the banks in full, and take control of the national economy to recover their money regardless of the impact on people is criminal in my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

come one,, haha.
They do remit profits. However, profits are what is left over "after" they take thier cut of the pie.. They don't work for free, nor do they simply take salary and bonus, they also take a piece of any profit derived from speculative play. That's HUGE money bud, and the gaming money they play with, or pie, is US taxpayer money.

 

The really scary part is that most people will probably agree with you out of some false sense of patriotism or because they don't quite realize the scam being played on them. So instead of stopping the insanity now when the pain would be great but not fatal, the debt will continue to double, and double and double every eight years or so until the banks own every square inch of the USA and every dollar of income ever earned by an American citizen. Then maybe you can take your Tresury notes and use them all to pay the taxes you will owe to the banks. The ultimate solution would probably be the issuance of some form of currency that isn't backed by debt to replace the FRNs and pay down the national debt. I'm pretty sure this won't happen, however, because it takes away the power of the banks. Just look at the opinions on CoinTalk. People are as much as saying, "Yes I want to live in poverty and see my children and grandchildren die at a young age because my ego tells me I'm personally responsible and this is a good thing." Even your concluding words indicate that you can't see that the losses you and I and everyone else will suffer from the coming devaluation isn't due to personal irresponsibility. It's just the final outcome of a well executed plan. So it goes.

 

I believe the Fed is permitted to earn a 6% return on assets that is paid to the member banks on a per share basis. The rest goes back to the US Treasury.

 

Bankers LOVE WAR baby.. they see a big loss coming and there's nothing like a good old WAR to reshuffle the debt from one nation to another,,, as long as the bankers keep the IOU's they don't care if a few million folks die. Watch out for Libya, maybe a nicely stagged tragic event to bring us in, Marine's are gearing up as we type back and forth......

I vote that Medorman puts his kids on the front line of the 1st wave, he seems to be all for it as it's obviously his personnel responsbility to ensure the bankers get thier debt repaid in full.

 

duplic

 

.. and then what's the member banks allowable take ?

 

My understanding is that the 6% is the total take, and member banks get the money as a dividend since they are the owners of the Fed.

 

I have been on the front lines in a war for this country sir, have you? You talking about my children really has no place in this discussion. I do not even have a clue where you dreamt up bankers are pushing for war........

 

OK, help me wrap my peanut head around this.
1 - Fed is given a few Trillion annually via taxpayers, rake 6%.
2 - money distributed to member banks who own the Fed, so member banks rake the 6% essentially (in the form of dividends), "Free money paid directly from US taxpayers" to a private entity.

3 printed trillion this year x 6% = 180 billion.... annually. That's just in America. Now bake in the a few more billion from the overseas operations, lets assume another 50 billion.
Annual rake = roughly a quarter trillion annually.

And they manufactured what ?,, created what tangible value ? Paid how much of that back in taxes ?

Now let's see, they've been operating since when ?, is it possible that they have already leached 50+ trillion or more from the US tax payer with the full assistance from the political puppets ?..... nahhhh. The sheeple would be in the streets with pitchforks !, especially if they figure out how much dept that 6% translates to coming out of thier wallet.

I say default,, they've made enough. Really, how many Trillions can a person spend ever spend.?

 

I've done my time in uniform, yes, thank you. Grew up on base also. I don't bring you children up as a direct volly here, just wanted to point out that historically deeply inbebted countries look to facilitate growth via armed conflict...it's likely our only legit ("responsible") way out of this monitary crisis and to pay and extend our current debt load. As you appear to be all for this pay your debt at all costs I just wonder if you'd pony up your loved ones very lives in the pursuit of personnal fiscal responsibility and fiscal morality.
If you doubt this, or the benefit to bankers from it, then you are deeply lacking historical learning. Google around a bit a let us know what you find relative to banking and war. Look forward to hearing from you on that.

 

So, if I do not agree with you, I am the one lacking historical "learning"? Its nice to just throw out that the party you disagree with is wrong based on his uninformed "learning". Please grace us with your dissertation concerning bankers profit during wartime conflicts and how bankers disproportionately profit during war. Most wars I see strip banks of profits on the winning side, due to high income taxes cause dby wartime expenditures, and cause utter collapse on the losing side. Maybe you are confusing bankers with the militatary industrial complex. Please be very specific in your references as to which banks have made substantial profits in a wartime scenario.

Sorry, but I am an ancient collector, so just take affront at someone blatantly accusing me of historical ignorance.

 

I agree that these problems are never dealt with by politicians, but these are OUR politicians. Someone didn't force them upon us, they were elected. You act as if this is a "scam" and you are innocent. We are all guilty Cloud, and I am sorry that you feel you are being persecuted. I feel all kinds of emotions about it, but I refuse to dishonor a debt incurred in my name.

We just disagree. You think someone loaning $5 for lunch money is to blame for that person being in debt to someone for $5. I see someone loaning someone $5 for lunch as helping someone else out and deserving to be repaid. Anything else is immoral to me.

 

The load was $5, the expected payback was $21 for making the loan. The $16 delta was for the risk of the debtor not paying his loan back. Assuming the guy making the loan has collected on this type of loan 300 times already, I think he could eat the $5 one time if the debtor is honestly broke and paying back the guy would threaten his ability to eat lunch the next day.

As to historical perspective, do you own leg work. <over>

 

Might I strongly suggest that in the future, personal lives, children, patriotism, etc. be eliminated in the posts. Since this is anonymous board, one could claim all sorts of things, but that does not contribute much to factual argumentation. This has been an interesting discussion, no matter what side one takes, and I would hate to see it stop, due to external factors. Thanks Gentlemen!

Jim

 

Either I'm not following your point, or your terminology makes no sense.

You're proposing a hypothetical currency that wouldn't be redeemable. The government prints up a piece of paper, and says that this piece of paper is twenty dollars. Not that it represents twenty dollars' worth of gold that's stored in a vault in Washington; not that it entitles the bearer to receive twenty dollars at some future date; but that it is twenty dollars, end of story.

In order to explain why anyone would want these pieces of paper, you say that the government will accept them for tax payments. That appears to raise two problems.

First, how is that different from redeemability? Under the current system, a certain fraction of tax receipts has to be used to make payments on the debt. Under your system, a certain fraction of tax receipts will be received in the form of your unredeemable paper. Either way, the amount of funds actually available to the government for spending is less than the amount collected in taxes. Either way, government spending in the past is being paid for out of current tax receipts. You define your proposed pieces of paper to be "debt-free money", but they sure do look like debts and quack like debts....

Second, why would these pieces of paper have value to anyone who didn't pay U.S. taxes? Under our present system, the great majority of Federal Reserve Notes circulate outside U.S. borders. It's not clear that your proposed currency could do this. It doesn't seem very sensible for the U.S. to adopt a currency that wouldn't be usable in international trade.

(As a related issue, are we all supposed to pay our taxes in person by handing over these pieces of paper? It'd be a bit difficult to file electronically under your system!)

To address your other point, the people did decide, some 98 years ago, that it's better not to put the "political class" in direct control of the money supply--precisely because the politicians must stand for election, which makes them highly likely to do things that look good in the short run and have disastrous consequences in the long run.

Democracy is a great system in a lot of ways, but it tends to operate under a dreadfully short time horizon. That's why we installed the benevolent despots at the Fed: they'll be more likely to strike a reasonable balance between present and future considerations. The Fed is hardly "unaccountable"; rather, it's less directly accountable, and less immediately accountable, than are the elected politicians. That buffer between the Fed and the voters is what allows the Fed to do its job.

 

Hey guise, I has a solution.

 

I'm not versed enough to comment on your entire post, but it should be noted that the purchasing power of the USD has declined 98% since that 98 year old unconstitutional law was passed. I had to laugh when I saw some other posts about the Fed remitting profits to the US Treasury. Their books aren't even made available for 180 days, and that has only been recently. I wonder how many books one can cook in 6 months? Nevermind all the gold swaps they refuse to disclose. You hit on something of importance as well that these people are not elected officials. Some of them are not even US citizens.

 

I would characterize it differently. A group of people in power are borrowing money to spend on pet projects, and assigning the bill to us. We are permitted to vote for any member of the group if we care to, but not permitted to opt out. If we try to opt out and not pay, we go to prison. If we somehow elect a president who decides to break the cycle and have the Treasury issue money instead of the Fed, they shoot him. Sorry if I don't show the proper amount of guilt for viewing this as somewhat tyranical. I know you want to believe there will be a painless way out of this, or even to continue the way things are, but these aren't options anymore. When this system was in its infancy, it was pointed out to Keynes that the system was unstable and unsustainable in the long run. He just responded that "in the long run we are all dead," and somehow this idiocy passed for wisdom at the time. Well, welcome to the long run world of high tech feudalism Mr. Serf. If I borrow $5, I expect to pay it. But if someone else borrows it, I don't feel the moral obligation to repay. And if I become unemployed or disabled and can't pay, I don't expect you to pay for me. I expect the lender to write off the loan and tighten their future lending standards.

 

The only difference between currency issued by the Fed and currency issued by the Treasury is that currency issued by the Treasury does not require the government to issue debt or pay interest. In all other respects, the two are equal. Both are irredemable. Both are legal tender. Both have value in international trade because they can be used to purchase goods and services within the USA. Both are spent into existence by the Federal Government. The arguments you are using against Treasury issued money is the same one that was used at one time by the gold crowd against Federal Reserve Notes. I'm continually amazed that people defend the current system [which no longer works because of debt levels] by proclaiming that the people voted for it, yet deny themselves and others the right to change the system. Maybe it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. I don't know.