Pindar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I am inclined to think that accusations of "niche right wing" is actually a euphamism for being a nazi. This is of course very convenient for the apologists of the current banking scam under which we must all operate and serves to associate any challengers of the banking system with anti-semitic right-wing militia types who have guns, ammo and tins of non-perishables stashed away in their mountain hidey-holes. The devices used to defend the existing system are extreme in their use of ridiculous analogies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 King Bingo, that appears to be a strange (and erroneous) attack on my (supposed) personality...since when is a request for an honest money system, a niche right wing view? If people put money in their current account, they expect it to be looked after as if it were in a safety deposit box or in a shoebox with their name on it. I would prefer a system that conforms to this view. When a bank collapses, people are amazed that the money in your current and savings accounts could disappear. They consequently believe it must have been stolen or that something illegal must have happened. I want a system that conforms to that view: if I store 100 hours of my labour in a bank, I don't want people telling me it's now disappeared, or that it was okay to gamble with it. I believe such a system already exists: it's called gold bullion in a safety deposit box. (Even cash in a safety deposit box is a thousand times safer than cash in a (collapsing) bank: At least you have a legal right to get all your money back even if the bank goes bust) So, if King Bingo is right and an honest money system will not be supplied, I should keep all my money in bullion in a safety deposit box. And if there's any chance of another bank collapse, so should everyone else. So an honest money system could fairly easily happen, whatever the government says. It just won't be in pounds, and it won't be in the bank's control. It will be in safety deposit boxes. So here is one tentative suggested solution to a collapsing bank system... This is exactly what is needed, but there is never anything stopping anyone who you have left your gold with loaning it out and relying on you not noticing. Such a system is only as honest as those who run it, and they have never been honest for long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methinkshe Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I am inclined to think that accusations of "niche right wing" is actually a euphamism for being a nazi. This is of course very convenient for the apologists of the current banking scam under which we must all operate and serves to associate any challengers of the banking system with anti-semitic right-wing militia types who have guns, ammo and tins of non-perishables stashed away in their mountain hidey-holes.The devices used to defend the existing system are extreme in their use of ridiculous analogies. You make a good point; without wishing to detract from it, and only for future reference, euphEmism not euphAmism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) King Bingo, that appears to be a strange (and erroneous) attack on my (supposed) personality...since when is a request for an honest money system, a niche right wing view? If people put money in their current account, they expect it to be looked after as if it were in a safety deposit box or in a shoebox with their name on it. I would prefer a system that conforms to this view. When a bank collapses, people are amazed that the money in your current and savings accounts could disappear. They consequently believe it must have been stolen or that something illegal must have happened. I want a system that conforms to that view: if I store 100 hours of my labour in a bank, I don't want people telling me it's now disappeared, or that it was okay to gamble with it. I believe such a system already exists: it's called gold bullion in a safety deposit box. (Even cash in a safety deposit box is a thousand times safer than cash in a (collapsing) bank: At least you have a legal right to get all your money back even if the bank goes bust) So, if King Bingo is right and an honest money system will not be supplied, I should keep all my money in bullion in a safety deposit box. And if there's any chance of another bank collapse, so should everyone else. So an honest money system could fairly easily happen, whatever the government says. It just won't be in pounds, and it won't be in the bank's control. It will be in safety deposit boxes. So here is one tentative suggested solution to a collapsing bank system... If it wasn't for a fractional reserve banking system you probably wouldnt have any money to store in a safety deposit box and would likely to be found in the fields making hay. Classic case of flintstone thinking. Edited February 22, 2009 by hancial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle rogi Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 If it wasn't for a fractional reserve banking system you probably wouldnt have any money to store in a safety deposit box and would likely to be found in the fields making hay. Classic case of flintstone thinking. defending a ponzi scheme whilst it is in the process of collapsing well done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mouse, thanks, I missed the reference. Perhaps King Bingo is making a joke. So, I've been called "niche right wing" and it's suggested I'm proposing going backwards and being mediaeval ...but neither invalidates the suggestion. So just for the record: does anyone out there, anyone, deny that gold bullion in a safety deposit box is safer than in a savings account in the bank? (given that you can still get your money out of a safety deposit box, legally, even if the bank goes bust). If no one denies this, then the remedy for the current uncertainty is clear...get a safety deposit box and put all your savings in it...(even though that in turn will mean all the banks will inevitably go bust). Injin: legally, I suspect you may be wrong. If the bank loses your money, that is not legally theft. However, with a safety deposit box, the bank cannot just break in and take it, that is legally theft. (and the human rights act makes it difficult for the government to allow theft. If they made a new act to allow it, this takes time, and you empty the deposit box meanwhile) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 defending a ponzi scheme whilst it is in the process of collapsing well done... Nothing wrong with the way frb allocates capital provided the money is used for productive purposes and banks maintain all assets on their balance sheets. The problems we see today are not as a result of FRB. Fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mouse, thanks, I missed the reference. Perhaps King Bingo is making a joke.So, I've been called "niche right wing" and it's suggested I'm proposing going backwards and being mediaeval ...but neither invalidates the suggestion. So just for the record: does anyone out there, anyone, deny that gold bullion in a safety deposit box is safer than in a savings account in the bank? (given that you can still get your money out of a safety deposit box, legally, even if the bank goes bust). If no one denies this, then the remedy for the current uncertainty is clear...get a safety deposit box and put all your savings in it...(even though that in turn will mean all the banks will inevitably go bust). Injin: legally, I suspect you may be wrong. If the bank loses your money, that is not legally theft. However, with a safety deposit box, the bank cannot just break in and take it, that is legally theft. (and the human rights act makes it difficult for the government to allow theft. If they made a new act to allow it, this takes time, and you empty the deposit box meanwhile) I don't believe that legality has anything to do with theft. I think that theft is a description of human behaviour, and that applies to all humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Nothing wrong with the way frb allocates capital provided the money is used for productive purposes and banks maintain all assets on their balance sheets.The problems we see today are not as a result of FRB. Fail. Yes, they are. FRB is a fraud enforced by the state on a captive population. Only voluntary actions can create economic value. Nothing else. Edited February 22, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 You make a good point; without wishing to detract from it, and only for future reference, euphEmism not euphAmism. Fanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle rogi Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 The problems we see today are not as a result of FRB.Fail. no nothing wrong with 30 and 40 to 1 leverage , as the banking system cannot seem to control itself (i and other would say by design) you would say by accident etc why not just get rid of it and then it cannot happen by default. i.e. pre central banking, monetary freedom etc are you opposed to freedom ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 no nothing wrong with 30 and 40 to 1 leverage , as the banking system cannot seem to control itself (i and other would say by design) you would say by accident etc why not just get rid of it and then it cannot happen by default.i.e. pre central banking, monetary freedom etc are you opposed to freedom ? I see no problem with the concept of fractional reserve banking - and neither am I defending our current economic system. I'm opposed to people having great productive enterprises in mind but with no access to capital to make it happen. A fixed money system results in the people who lend money eventually owning it all - or inclined to not lend it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I see no problem with the concept of fractional reserve banking - and neither am I defending our current economic system.I'm opposed to people having great productive enterprises in mind but with no access to capital to make it happen. A fixed money system results in the people who lend money eventually owning it all - or inclined to not lend it at all. Not so, the more of whatever is money in a free market you withdraw, the more you make another substance attractive as money. The history of silver and gold trading is littered with bankrupt idiots who thought they could corner the market. As for the capital comment - in that regard banks solve the problems we have because we have banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uriah Heap Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Not necessarily; it would depend how such a currrency was issued.I know this could sound a bit la-la land, but if one accepts that cash/wealth represents a store of labour - even if only for the 5 minutes it is held between a wage being received and spent, then a new global currency could be backed by productive labour potential. I think you have rediscovered Marx's Labour Theory of Value. That's the bit that even Marxists don't believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 King Bingo, that appears to be a strange (and erroneous) attack on my (supposed) personality...since when is a request for an honest money system, a niche right wing view? What's strange is your overreaction. I was not aware that being on the right of our political system was a slight on a personality. I would certainly class myself as on the right insofar as the best fit for me are the Tory's. However, Uncle Yogi was probably about right when he said libertarian, which I think its uncontroversial to say is largely a centre right concern. Moreover I am more of the Adam Smith Institute or IEA type mindset. While both of these are officially neutral they are seen as close to the Tories. Now getting to the point; its is really only among a yet smaller still sub group of these groups that I hear the idea of an end to the fractional reserve banking system and a return to 1:1 saving loan ratio getting serious discussion, and even then, it is very much a niche view even there. What your describing is the same as what I hear them saying, you have developed it less, but the idea is the same. I know some bloke recent wrote a book on exactly this, I'll try and dig out the link. So yes, a niche right wing view is more or less right. Shame you recoil so forcefully at the label. If people put money in their current account, they expect it to be looked after as if it were in a safety deposit box or in a shoebox with their name on it. I would prefer a system that conforms to this view. Fine, but you won't earn interest, and if this became the norm businesses would pretty much only be able to fund expansion through cash flow if it became a global rule. However, if the UK adopted it and the rest of the world did not the UK would be flooded with foreign capital as business just borrows abroad. I'm yet to hear a coherent answer to how you could have a unilateral return to gold. When a bank collapses, people are amazed that the money in your current and savings accounts could disappear. They consequently believe it must have been stolen or that something illegal must have happened. I want a system that conforms to that view: if I store 100 hours of my labour in a bank, I don't want people telling me it's now disappeared, or that it was okay to gamble with it. Well if that's what you want you can have it now. I believe such a system already exists: it's called gold bullion in a safety deposit box. Exactly. And if there's any chance of another bank collapse, so should everyone else. So an honest money system could fairly easily happen, whatever the government says. It just won't be in pounds, and it won't be in the bank's control. It will be in safety deposit boxes. So here is one tentative suggested solution to a collapsing bank system... Then really, go ahead. If we are about to see banking collapse then you would be mad not to do just that. However, I don't think we are about to see widespread banking collapse, and for that reason I can't think of anything worse than putting all my assets into gold at a 15 year high, which is in a bubble due to irrational fear. BUT, if you want to , be my guest. I am inclined to think that accusations of "niche right wing" is actually a euphamism for being a nazi. Knee jerk nonsense, nothing could be further from the true. The centre right have always been fiercely opposed to national socialism. The devices used to defend the existing system are extreme in their use of ridiculous analogies. The ridiculous thing is your willingness to leap to unfounded conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 However, I don't think we are about to see widespread banking collapse, and for that reason I can't think of anything worse than putting all my assets into gold at a 15 year high Would a currency collapse suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 What's strange is your overreaction. I was not aware that being on the right of our political system was a slight on a personality.I would certainly class myself as on the right insofar as the best fit for me are the Tory's. However, Uncle Yogi was probably about right when he said libertarian, which I think its uncontroversial to say is largely a centre right concern. Moreover I am more of the Adam Smith Institute or IEA type mindset. While both of these are officially neutral they are seen as close to the Tories. Libertarian does not automatically mean right wing. You can be a left-wing libertarian like Gandhi or like the old Liberal party. Libertarianism is traditionally associated with the American right so it is assumed to mean right-wing. Gross generalisations or convenient categorisations aside, why do you consider a desire to see reform of the banking system to be a "right wing niche"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 no nothing wrong with 30 and 40 to 1 leverage Under certain circumstances no. It does require strong stable growth to justify..... as the banking system cannot seem to control itself Which is why you need a government/(regulatory framework) with a firm grasp of the money supply. Not a government that 18 months ago was lecturing Europe on their old-fashioned banking system, (code for, use more debt). That said, today the government is calling for a return to traditional banking. Shame it adopted the opposite position when it mattered. why not just get rid of it and then it cannot happen by default. Because I think it would curtail growth. I just can't prove you wrong, because their are no real world examples that follow you system. With the possible exception of online game economies, but I'm stretching here. If you know of a good example please say. i.e. pre central banking, monetary freedom etc are you opposed to freedom ? This is exactly the point the sub-groups on the right make again and again, thus my right wing niche description. If this is something you feel strongly about come along to an IEA meeting if your in London and find a few people that are very happy to develop this idea. (although the majority I should add do not support it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Libertarian does not automatically mean right wing. Not always no, just mostly these days. why do you consider a desire to see reform of the banking system to be a "right wing niche"? Because these are the people I hear prompting this idea/writing books on it/ blogging on it etc. I am yet to see any traditional left wing groups promoting this idea. If you can cite any please do so and I will stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Would a currency collapse suffice? Of what against what? If you mean sterling against the dollar for example, still no because I would rather have a portfolio of US stocks, cash and bonds. If you mean against the euro I would simply disagree. As screwed as we are, and we are very screwed, we are not in the Euro, which I just can't see surviving the asymmetric shocks which are hitting the eurozone, and in my view increase in any partial recovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Not always no, just mostly these days. Because these are the people I hear prompting this idea/writing books on it/ blogging on it etc. I am yet to see any traditional left wing groups promoting this idea. If you can cite any please do so and I will stand corrected. You can't have heard of Noam Chomsky then. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081010112037474 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 You can't have heard of Noam Chomsky then. http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081010112037474 Well of course I have, but fair enough good point. I don't much care about the label anyway,i was just shocked by your over reaction earlier. All the same I still get the impression that the most sizeable body of opinion on this one is on the right. But if you find that objectional then fine, its has some support on the left too. Not that it really matters anyway. The idea will probably make no traction anywhere on the political spectrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I think you have rediscovered Marx's Labour Theory of Value. That's the bit that even Marxists don't believe. Yes Labour is only one of many "values" that are stored in "money" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle rogi Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Under certain circumstances no. It does require strong stable growth to justify..... bubble levels of growth more like. Which is why you need a government/(regulatory framework) with a firm grasp of the money supply. Not a government that 18 months ago was lecturing Europe on their old-fashioned banking system, (code for, use more debt). That said, today the government is calling for a return to traditional banking. Shame it adopted the opposite position when it mattered. goverments are the porblem the free market can will and would regulate itself. Because I think it would curtail growth. I just can't prove you wrong, the need for growth is because like a shark swimming in order to breath the debt based fractional reserve system dies without it. see the google video money as debt for a detailed explanation. because their are no real world examples that follow you system. most of the world before central banks see the american west for an example, decades of very slight deflation. This is exactly the point the sub-groups on the right make again and again, thus my right wing niche description. If this is something you feel strongly about come along to an IEA meeting if your in London and find a few people that are very happy to develop this idea. (although the majority I should add do not support it) the ponzi scheme (40 years of paper world reserve) is collapsing now multipolarity will replace the collapsed fiat empire, for gold to reflect this properly we would have to see a return to the early 80's peak pricing rational* i.e. all the gold america claims to have (not independently audited since the late 50's) divided by all the dollars in circulation and we are no where near those levels. *the rational of the 80's included a war in afganistan a looming recession and a crisis in iran...spot any similarities LOL http://www.321gold.com/editorials/willie/willie021909.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Of what against what?If you mean sterling against the dollar for example, still no because I would rather have a portfolio of US stocks, cash and bonds. If you mean against the euro I would simply disagree. As screwed as we are, and we are very screwed, we are not in the Euro, which I just can't see surviving the asymmetric shocks which are hitting the eurozone, and in my view increase in any partial recovery. Of the pound versus anything tangible. All currencies will become worthless, and that the pound might do so slightly faster or slower against another worthless is irrelevent. Edited February 23, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.