1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brain"This excellent, entertaining and animated feature by graphic artist and videographer, Paul Grignon, explains – in careful detail - today’s magically perverse debt money system. This 47 minute video presentation makes the perfect accompaniment to THE MONEY MASTERS as it delves into the specific mechanics of private money creation. It is best watched after THE MONEY MASTERS video which introduces the whole subject of modern money manipulation and its history in a broad, 3 ½ hour video presentation."
I don't believe in god. I never saw the logic in explaining an existence with an another existence. No amount of faith can allow me to see past logic.
Still no facts I see. Nothing but mindless criticism. I can see I really got to you, though you will never admit it.
Grignon had nothing to do with the Money masters. Once again, wrong film.
If yo ore. I'm sure he gets feedback from many people like yourself.
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
quoted from http://www.themoneymasters.com/
Oh no. Money Masters has no affiliation with Paul at all nor do they endorse anything in Money as Debt. 🙄
Originally posted by PalynkaI told you it is explained in more detail later in the film.
Are you going to address the issue of the quote or is "out-of-context" your only defense?
Here is a concise version:
The US government sells bonds to the Fed and the fed prints the money for the government debt. That lets the Fed collect interest from the bonds for creating money for the government.
I have been asking if the fed collects interest from creating money but nobody will answer the question. It seems that on one knows. Answering this one question would settle the debate once and for all. I just want an answer to the question so I know the truth. I don't care who is right, I just want to know the truth backed up by facts, not merely opinion.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe US government sells bonds to the Fed and the fed prints the money for the government debt. That lets the Fed collect interest from the bonds for creating money for the government.
I told you it is explained in more detail later in the film.
Here is a concise version:
The US government sells bonds to the Fed and the fed prints the money for the government debt. That lets the Fed collect interest from the bonds for creating money for the government.
I have been asking if the fed collects interest from creating money but nobod ...[text shortened]... don't care who is right, I just want to know the truth backed up by facts, not merely opinion.
That operation doesn't require US government bonds. I already explained that the only reason why US government bonds are so used is because they're very liquid and virtually risk-free. Nothing prevents the Fed from using any other security and the money supply is not dependent on the existence of government debt.
The fed collects interest from the loans it gives or the bonds it holds. Again, if it simply changes the money supply via open market operations (OMO), then it does so without giving out loans and no interest is directly involved in such operations. I don't see why banks should have access to zero-interest loans from the Fed when they borrow via the discount window. Do you?
When you have a bank note in your pocket, there is NO interest attached to it. If the bank loaned money (and asked for paper bills) from the Fed, then it doesn't pass on the interest along with the bills. If the bank sold a security to the Fed and asked for physical bills in return, then there is no new interest involved.
Originally posted by telerionGrignon did not make the Money Masters, he made Money as Debt. The Money Masters did not make Money as Debt either.
"This excellent, entertaining and animated feature by graphic artist and videographer, Paul Grignon, explains – in careful detail - today’s magically perverse debt money system. This 47 minute video presentation makes the perfect accompaniment to THE MONEY MASTERS as it delves into the specific mechanics of private money creation. It is best watched after T ...[text shortened]... Masters has no affiliation with Paul at all nor do they endorse anything in Money as Debt. 🙄
I did not mislead anybody. Grignon was just sloppy, anybody can pull cash out of their wallet and see for themselves and know there is no danger of it disappearing. He was referring to that other majority of the money supply that is made from fractional reserve banking. He should have made that distinction but did not not. I doubt he was intentionally making himself look bad. I do think he exaggerates the downside of FRB though.
I don't have a big problem with fractional reserve banking if the minimum reserve requirements are raised. I think raising reserve requirements is a simple solution. I just think it should be done slowly in small increments.
We can see what happens if it is raised all at once to high reserves. Banks are voluntarily keeping reserves high in the USA. Their reserves are probably higher than their loans. This is the result. Just take a look.
I think it is interesting that the Fed says the minimum reserve requirements are 10% but in practice they are much lower. If they are 3% why don't they just say so?
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat other securities are used? I asked that same question before because it is important for me to be able to understand. I understand that the operation does not require US bonds, but are those other securities ever used in practice?
[b]The US government sells bonds to the Fed and the fed prints the money for the government debt. That lets the Fed collect interest from the bonds for creating money for the government.
That operation doesn't require US government bonds. I already explained that the only reason why US government bonds are so used is because they're very liquid ...[text shortened]... y to the Fed and asked for physical bills in return, then there is no new interest involved.[/b]
I never said the money supply was dependent on government debt. This is about a very simple question. I have a feeling the answer will not be simple though.
If the fed collects interest from the bonds it holds, the Fed must have paid for those bonds somehow, right?
How did the fed pay for them and where did the money come from?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaWhy don't you just explain your answer more thoroughly? Use Facts. Without facts, your statements are just opinions. Your opinions may be correct, but someone confident in their answer would use facts.
I don't have a link, because what I know is not taken textually from any website. Unlike you, I don't have a Gospel to resort to, I have only reality. I also don't expect you to read my mind, I expect you to read my posts. Until now, you've shown repeatedly that you cannot even do that (e.g. last two columns)
Here is your chance. Show Metal why he and the quote are wrong.
EDIT: to be clear, i am neither attacking nor defending any side of this. Just looking for clarity. All I've seen is opinions on both sides
Originally posted by Metal BrainPerhaps this will help: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/frseries/frseri2.htm
What other securities are used? I asked that same question before because it is important for me to be able to understand. I understand that the operation does not require US bonds, but are those other securities ever used in practice?
I never said the money supply was dependent on government debt. This is about a very simple question. I have a feelin ...[text shortened]... r those bonds somehow, right?
How did the fed pay for them and where did the money come from?
The Federal Reserve consists of five banks. Banks have (or at least used to have) funds. So the Federal Reserve Bank buys the bonds. The money to buy the bonds comes from the operations of the bank. According to the site:
Finally, the Committee must reach a consensus regarding the appropriate course for policy, which is incorporated in a directive to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the Bank that executes transactions for the System Open Market Account. The directive is cast in terms designed to provide guidance to the Manager in the conduct of day-to-day open market operations. The directive sets forth the Committee's objectives for long-run growth of certain key monetary and credit aggregates. It also sets forth operating guidelines for the degree of ease or restraint to be sought in reserve conditions and expectations with regard to short-term rates of growth in the monetary aggregates. Policy is implemented with emphasis on supplying reserves in a manner consistent with these objectives and with the nation's broader economic objectives.
Effects of Policy
Depository institutions are required to maintain reserves in certain proportions against various types of their checkable deposits. Open market operations directly affect the level of reserves in the banking system. Federal Reserve purchases of securities add to reserves; sales withdraw reserves from the System. If reserves increase, depository institutions will generally acquire new loans and investments, which will tend to exert downward pressure on interest rates.
Open market operations as directed by the FOMC are the major tool used to influence the total amount of money and credit available in the economy. The Federal Reserve attempts to provide enough reserves to encourage expansion of money and credit in keeping with the goals of price stability and sustainable growth in economic activity.
I hope that helps.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaLook Palynka, ANY documentary is going to have parts where points are poorly communicated or just wrong.
[b]Ok, at best you've taken the quote out of context, and worse, you've misquoted it.
Err... No, I didn't. This guy was raving about how TODAY we cannot have a debt-free government because he claims money supply can't exist without it and we needed to reform our banking system before thinking about a debt-free government.
This is false and I've exp it), it is not now and so the statement above is still the rantings of a lunatic.[/b]
2 hours and 45 minutes of the film talks about the historical battle between US presidents and the bankers of the day. Only 15 minutes or so is dedicated to his theory about what kind of a new monetary system we should adopt.
I've heard most of the points in the film before. I've read all about Jekyll Island and the previous First Bank and Second Bank. I know how dead set against a Federal Reserve Washington, Lincoln, Jackson were. Otto van Bismark's quotes regarding the international bankers is widely known to historians. Hell, even Thomas Edison has some famous quotes regarding his disdain to handing over control of the money supply to private interests.
The point here is that to dismiss what really is a RELATIVELY good walk through 200 years of history simply by what the narrator wasn't clear about in what is obviously a low budget film that is in serious need of an editor, is crazy.
The job of any good reader/viewer is to take the information presented and decide for him/herself what information is useful and what is not. It's critical thinking. But that doesn't mean you just walk away from what really is a good source of information that isn't available in most textbooks.
It's not all correct, and he definitely makes a few leaps here and there but as long as you don't blindly believe EVERYTHING someone tells you, it's definitely a better use of your time than yapping on here with guys like uzless!!
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe fact that banks, because of the breakdown of the financial system, are at present keeping their reserves far higher than normal as compared to new loans and by doing that are worsening the recession is a pretty good refutation of your claim that the economy would function better with a higher reserve requirement. You say:
Grignon did not make the Money Masters, he made Money as Debt. The Money Masters did not make Money as Debt either.
I did not mislead anybody. Grignon was just sloppy, anybody can pull cash out of their wallet and see for themselves and know there is no danger of it disappearing. He was referring to that other majority of the money supply that is mad ements are 10% but in practice they are much lower. If they are 3% why don't they just say so?
I think raising reserve requirements is a simple solution.
What is it a "simple solution" for?
Originally posted by uzlessSorry, I will dismiss it based on the 5 minutes I watched of delusional alarmism, wrong premises and false facts. I've seen it all before in the Zeitgeist chapter about the Fed.
Look Palynka, ANY documentary is going to have parts where points are poorly communicated or just wrong.
2 hours and 45 minutes of the film talks about the historical battle between US presidents and the bankers of the day. Only 15 minutes or so is dedicated to his theory about what kind of a new monetary system we should adopt.
I've heard most of the ...[text shortened]... it's definitely a better use of your time than yapping on here with guys like uzless!!
The job of any good reader/viewer is to take the information presented and decide for him/herself what information is useful and what is not.
I already did. 5 minutes were enough for me to decide it's a waste of time.
Are you going to learn monetary economics now or do you realize that the dilemma you offer me is a false one?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaSorry, I will dismiss it based on the 5 minutes I watched of delusional alarmism, wrong premises and false facts. I've seen it all before in the Zeitgeist chapter about the Fed.
[/b]
sigh...it would have been much more interesting to discuss why so many historical figures were so dead set against giving control of the money supply to private interests. I see you have no interest in this.
Are you going to learn monetary economics now or do you realize that the dilemma you offer me is a false one?
Again, you assume ignorance where I have stated none. I haven't argued for or against anything regarding MODERN economic theory. What I have said previously to Telerion though was that I question the track record of the fed to stabilize prices and question their policies in the previous decade (as have many economists).
To paraphrase an old pope, I don't hold the current Fed responsible for the errors of the previous Fed. Modern economics is definitely different than in the time of Lincoln and the battle against his Greenbacks. The call to bring back the Greenback is fraught with problems and i'm not entirely sure that Friedman's plan to do so can be implemented without massive disruption to the global monetary system.
Unless of course you want to discuss a one-world currency...but hey, no no, that sounds like conspiracy talk!!!
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessQuestioning the track record is very different than going on a full-fledged conspiracy theory. I'm certainly not acritical of the Fed or monetary authorities, be it in the past or even currently (see your interest rates thread). I even would prefer, like you, that it should be completely nationalized. But one thing are the Fed's decisions or even it's institutional set-up, another is the attack on the existence of a monetary authority, under a fractional-reserve banking system.
[b]Sorry, I will dismiss it based on the 5 minutes I watched of delusional alarmism, wrong premises and false facts. I've seen it all before in the Zeitgeist chapter about the Fed.
sigh...it would have been much more interesting to discuss why so many historical figures were so dead set against giving control of the money supply to private interests. want to discuss a one-world currency...but hey, no no, that sounds like conspiracy talk!!![/b]
If we are going to discuss the former, then the paranoiac ramblings of that video only introduce noise. If you want to contextualize the debate elsewhere, then, by all means, give it a go.
If we are to discuss the latter, then present your arguments. Telling me to watch a 3h video and then evade me when I bring about the first criticism seems to me as an indication that we're really not communicating. And I think it's obvious that at least Metal Brain is not even trying to understand what I'm writing.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have to admit I had no idea kennedy did this. If I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, was Kennedy trying to issue currency backed by silver?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
Notice that this reissue of Lincoln's greenback by Kennedy says United States Note and not Federal Reserve Note. The Fed does not like competition when it comes to the issuance of money.
http://dollardaze.org/blog/posts/2007/October/19/1/Kennedy2DollarLarge.jpg