Ok, I'm still digesting basic economy.

As I understand it, governments (lets say the US or canadian government) have a certain amount of money they get from the taxes. This they can spend for whatever they spend money for.
If they need more money then they need to borrow it.

If they borrow it, they have to pay it back with interests.

From Wiki: "Most developed country governments are prohibited by law from printing money directly, that function having been relegated to their central banks. However, central banks may buy government bonds in order to finance government spending, thereby monetizing the debt."

Now , who makes "the law". And why has a central bank to make SO MUCH profit?
http://moneymorning.com/2011/03/30/...ks-record-82-billion-profit-red-flag-warning/
Isn't that the money that increases public debt every year???????

Is there an alternative to that system? Like nationalizing all banks?

Logically the government wouldn't have to pay interests on borrowed money. It could print its own money if needed and wouldn't depend on money created out of thin air by banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement).

Also logically, eventually we will get more for our tax money OR tax amount will decrease.

Or what am I missing here?

 

if i remember correctly, government printing money as needed does not work either - money quickly looses value (Russia early 1990's, was interesting as bread was at one point the same price as an apartment because they were not adjusting things properly, I am exaggerating of course, but not by much). On the other hand seemed to work for Germany in 1930's...

However, I have not been able to understand why it is not the government but some other entity that controls country's economy. Of course mention nationalizing banks in US, its like waving a flag in front of a bull...

 

However, I have not been able to understand why it is not the government but some other entity that controls country's economy. .

Me neither.

Whoever prints the money, I don't understand why so much profit is being made out of it.

And IF I get it right this profit is added to the public debt.

Maybe someone can explain if it really works that way...

 

It was constituted during the Jekyll Island meeting.
Much is written about it but pure power stays on top!

http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Federal_Reserve_System

 

The money we owe is to the Chinese and to ourselves. Basically whats happening and has been happening for the past 100 years is the West has live way way way beyond their means from the work they actually do. Many 1% don't work at all and just make money from their own money which is non taxable. Its basically a big pyramid scheme that will eventually collapse. Capitalism/Democracy-Fascism don't work in the long term because its like monopoly. In the end 1 person owns everything. Usually in history this is when a kind is overthrown and an entire class is beheaded or exiled to balance out the economy again. Now that was history and since now were on a global scale that can't happen anymore.But currently our gov/Baby Boomer generation has raped and pillaged this country so bad were on the verge of collapse. They don't care because they won't have to go thru the 30 years its gonna take to balance out again.

 

The money we owe is to the Chinese and to ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Estimated_ownership_of_treasury_securities_by_year.gif

 

The money we owe is to the Chinese and to ourselves.

make no mistake, the federal reserve is not federal. It is a private bank, and does not take orders from the United States Government. Quite the contrary.

 

Praondevou I think you have same understanding that I have, as far as the central banking goes. I think the federal reserve bank is the biggest scam in the history of America. I'm not sure the order in which all these central banking nations started falling for it, but... Q: Who's the bigger idiot, the first lemming or the last lemming? A: They're ALL idiots.
Handing the entire nations' economy to a few people with no rules... WTF were they thinking? That's like letting a schizophrenic cracked-out edward scissorhands hold your manhood. Now we can't go back unless we file bankruptcy, which wouldn't be a bad idea IMO. Pull the rug out from under the FED and start over with a new system that doesn't include them.

 

Pull the rug out from under the FED and start over with a new system that doesn't include them.

So how are you going to do this?

I just saw a world map showing the public debt of all countries.

So it looks like that economic growth is directly linked to public debt, which seems logical, since growth depends on loans.
Is there no growth possible without loans?

As for inflation fears when banks are nationalized: What is the difference of the government borrowing inexistant money and the government print money themself? In either cases the money did not exist before...

Have a look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9550667.stm
"That is because when Iceland's banks went spectacularly bust, instead of pouring in billions of taxpayers' money to shore them up, Iceland just closed them down. "

 

In the US it goes way back to the beginning of the country. Its well documented in history but not taught to us in school. Hamilton won out over Jefferson, and we've been paying ever since. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html

 

As always, somebody already had a deeper look into this issue:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/14-reasons-why-we-should-nationalize-the-federal-reserve

 

small consolation knowing who or what to blame. Wondering how we will collectively fix it may well be an exercise in futility.
What we do as individuals to secure life and limb, sustenance and security for ourselves and our families is paramount.

 

So how are you going to do this?

Just force the president to go on TV and say "Federal Reserve, Ben Bernake, all you other secret stockholders of the Federal Reserve, we regret to inform you that your usury services will no longer be needed. Effective immediately, we are a debt free nation; We have no intention of paying any of these conjured up debt dollars to you. To all the other nations & entities who we owe money, We have established a task force to evaluate on a case by case basis whether or not our debt to you is also conjured up or legitimate and whether or not our services to you over the years cancel out our debt. If you are found to be justly owed anything, you will be paid, when the United States feels it is prudent to pay you. We will be in touch. China, you know what's up, so if you have any war plans you might want to start practicing now."

I just saw a world map showing the public debt of all countries.

So it looks like that economic growth is directly linked to public debt, which seems logical, since growth depends on loans.
Is there no growth possible without loans?

Yes, throughout history, progress (growth) has been made on the backs of loans. But haven't we learned that perpetual growth is not a good thing? Don't you think we could stand to go on a diet for a while, if not permanently? The only problem I see here is if we stop growing and other nations (chindia) do not. this generation faces economic crisis; the next may face hostile takeover by a much larger force(s).

As for inflation fears when banks are nationalized: What is the difference of the government borrowing inexistant money and the government print money themself? In either cases the money did not exist before...

no difference, except that we the people would have some control over it, instead of leaving that control up to shadowy figures who's intent & agendas are unknown.

 

Praondevou, in your quest, have you come across the idea that the amount of money need not be finite? A system of money where some are in the negative and some are in the positive, but the net amount of money in the economy is zero? When money is finite, it becomes a commodity in it's own right, and false shortages of it are created in an effort to keep us on a hamster wheel (in addition to trying to race inflation). People race to gather as much of it as they can, fearing future shortages. Money should not be a commodity; it should be a medium of exchange only. What do you think about this?

 

Money should not be a commodity; it should be a medium of exchange only. What do you think about this?

I think it's feeding to many parasites.

 

...
WTF were they thinking? That's like letting a schizophrenic cracked-out edward scissorhands hold your manhood.
...

Darn that made me snort! Funniest financial metaphor I have seen in years!

...
Praondevou, in your quest, have you come across the idea that the amount of money need not be finite? A system of money where some are in the negative and some are in the positive, but the net amount of money in the economy is zero? When money is finite, it becomes a commodity in it's own right, and false shortages of it are created in an effort to keep us on a hamster wheel (in addition to trying to race inflation). People race to gather as much of it as they can, fearing future shortages. Money should not be a commodity; it should be a medium of exchange only. What do you think about this?
...

The Keynseian economic model (where there is a fixed amount of wealth and A can only get richer if B gets poorer) has been understood to be a very old fashioned and faulty economic model.

Wealth can be created and added to the total pool through improvements in technology and management.

As a simple example if there are only 3 people in the world (2 farmers and a goat herder) Keynes would say that one can only get richer if the other 2 get proportionally poorer.

But in reality the 2 farmers can get better at farming and produce more crops, the goat herder can get better at breeding, so all 3 get richer and have more food to eat.