The biggest argument posted against my original post on the nature of money (really wasn't much of an argument) was that the system can remain intact through the mechanism of bankruputcy, dis-solution of the insolvent, default on the debt.

There is an error in this thinking and an overlooked dark side to the delusion that this bust side of the boom/bust cycle is healthy, repeatable and sustainable.

What you fail to understand are 2 things...

1. The money as debt system makes all of humanity beholden to the banking system. They are owed all the money. This constitutes slavery regardless if it is voluntary or not.

2. The idea that recessions are somehow "cleansing" and allow the process to start over is false because it does not follow through on the chain of events involved in bankruputcy, dis-solution of the insolvent etc. What proponents of recession as a cleansing mechanism fail to see is that the assets of the bankruput become the assets of the creditors, the banks, the same ones who the bankruput were beholden to by debt. At the end of this cycle not only do the banks have title to all the debt they issued they now have physical possession of the foreclosed upon assets. The money lenders hold the world hostage through debt AND end up possessing all of the real assets to boot! How do you think JP Morgan became the dominant force that they are? Study his actions during the crash of 29 and thereafter and you will see. How did Joe Kennedy go from having a few million to a hundred million in 4 short years? How did it come to pass that 1% of the population owns 90% of all the worlds wealth? The answer...through the money as debt system and the process I just explained.

Enjoy. The truth is there if you care to see it.

Pguy your inflexibility is your doom. I have found that those who are the most certain of their world view, are the most wrong.

If I say that the sun rises in the East I am not being inflexible, pompous or arrogant. I am stating a fact. What I have written about the money as debt system is fact. It is exactly how it works. It is exactly correct in every way. It is not subjective or my opinion, it is the way it is. And...all the conclusions I draw from the facts are logical, rational and likely.

I take part of that back. My conclusions are not likely...they are mathematically certain. If you disagree please take my argument apart one piece at a time. Please do it systematically and point by point so that I can re-prove what I've stated clearly.

Those who borrow and are unable to support their borrowing with productive output did not really own what they claimed to.

Your argument is therefore specious.

How many REO properties do the banks have now? The homes that the banks now own are the same homes they held the debt on. In recourse loans they not only possess the physical asset they posses the debt to. This is exactly how 1% of the population over time has come to posses 90% of the wealth. It wasn't by working overtime

"If I say that the sun rises in the East I am not being inflexible,"

No, but if you proselytize a position without knowing the facts, insist on implying that your beliefs are fact without support, and refuse to acknowledge that your position and logic may be untenable- what does that make you?

PG, does these sentence "What matters is not what backs the currency, but who controls its quantity" make sense to you?

Are you implying that the banks pulled the temple down on their own heads to intentionally take ownership of a broad chunk of the American housing asset? Wow. You are living in a fantasy world.

PG wrote..

The biggest argument posted against my original post on the nature of money (really wasn't much of an argument) was that the system can remain intact through the mechanism of bankruputcy, dis-solution of the insolvent, default on the debt.

Which it does and it has, for 12,000 years. History refutes your premise on its face.

PG wrote..

There is an error in this thinking and an overlooked dark side to the delusion that this bust side of the boom/bust cycle is healthy, repeatable and sustainable.

Quote:

It IS healthy, repeatable and sustainable. Again, history proves this to be the case. Compare life on earth in 2010 to -10,000 BC.

PG wrote..

1. The money as debt system makes all of humanity beholden to the banking system. They are owed all the money. This constitutes slavery regardless if it is voluntary or not.

Quote:

You ignore that people can own assets outright, paid for with no payments due to anyone. Such a person with no debts is not a slave as they are not the property of the banking system. Their cash can be used to purchase anything they so desire.

I do not present anything as my "belief" "Belief" without evidence is delusion. I am not delusional and yes, the banks did and do this intentionally and have many times throughout history.

As to the quantity of money question?...yes, you are correct. The fed controlled the money supply during the depression. They contracted money and that caused the run on the banks. That is how and why we have 4 money center banks today that control the vast bulk of all the money in existence.

Ben....your example flies in the face of reality. The entire money supply is debt owed to banks...do we have a larger or smaller money supply now? 10,000 BC did not have banking dude

Quote:

As to the quantity of money question?...yes, you are correct. The fed controlled the money supply during the depression. They contracted money and that caused the run on the banks. That is how and why we have 4 money center banks today that control the vast bulk of all the money in existence.

No they didn't. That's a commonly-repeated lie.

The Depression happened due to margin collapse, which in turn occurred due to excessive credit issuance.

They called in loans. Margin is credit. They contracted the money supply by contracting margin. Same thing

The sumerians, 8000 years ago, left lots of records of financial transactions and laws, some of which still apply and are used today.

Maybe not 10,000BC, but 5000BC and the evidence clearly shows that it wasn't something new even then - that's just the oldest records we've found.

What BS. And as a bonus for TF, a telling and revealing slip.

"all the conclusions I draw from the facts are logical, rational and likely ... I take part of that back. My conclusions are not likely...they are mathematically certain"

All this without knowing any math.


And, FYI: margin collapse != margin call. Margins were not controlled by the government until SEA of 1934.

Everything that I'm referring to is no older than 300 years. The modern fiat fractional reserve banking system. Ancient history is not relevent

Pat - Who needs to understand math when one can just ... simply ... "KNOW".

Hammurabi. The original fractional lending.

I know because I understand.

"I think, therefore I am."

FYI: margin collapse != margin call. Margins were not controlled by the government until SEA of 1934.

Correct. I said margin COLLAPSE, not Margin CALL.

"I know because I understand."

Correction: I understand because I know.