John, re "Carry on alone" Just a failed joke in relation to Vitaliy getting stuck into the hack.

Everyone's POV will be different and everyone is typically passionate about the conclusions they've come to. I love heated passionate discussions about politics and even religion sometimes. I know that as soon as I've taken someone else's POV as a challenge to my own I've usually stopped exchanging information and ideas and started trying to convert "them" to my way (POV). I've come to realize that this is almost always impossible! Maybe it's just that I haven't the talent for it but no one EVER converts to my POV. The best I ever get is that they add some parts of my POV t o their own - and that NEVER happens when I go on the conversion path.

I guess one reason VK opened up this site is because other sites restrict topics like religion and politics - which I think is a terrible mistake actually. Man is political, to remove that from the discussion is essentially cutting off his balls - or maybe one of his balls. :D What they should restrict instead is personal attacks and leave it at that. I hope that's what happens here too! I love this stuff and I've learned something (even if small) from each post in this thread so far.

About fractional reserve for example I can see it as both a medicine and as an a terrible evil. It's a required medicine when is it's limited (limited fraction reserve banking) and when controls are on cooperations (including banking corporations) are healthy and in place. We had those in the USA just not too long ago and things were working pretty good. When those limits and controls are removed or circumvented then we get what we have today (in the USA anyway) and that's pretty evil. But then again the power-men behind most of the recent crimes and ills say they WANT what I call evil too, so it's entirely by design that it's gone to shit. Further, unless we rise up politically (on mass), demand consequences, overturn the recent headway "they" have made, and force a stop to the current evils, nothing is going to change! The talking heads can all talk their heads off and the direction will not veer one millimeter.

In the case of the USA all we need is a little libertarianism, a LOT more accountability (lying statesmen need to go to jail, and cheating corporations need REAL penalties, etc!), the reestablishment of controls and limits, and some good old Ludwig von Mises economics. The chances of that happening? I think almost zero. The crooks are too established and powerful and American's are total cowards (when it comes to ethics and politics)! Plus it's just about impossible to get everyone on the same page - the page that reads: "It's time to wake up and take back our country". What we do not need IMO and what would never fly in the USA is Marxism. IMO Marxism is a really beautiful concept before one examines it closely. Examined, it's based on the false idea that there is such a thing as a community or a state as an entity when all there really is are individuals. Because it's based on the unnatural idea of a non-existant "State" and offers no "natural" incentives it needs to be enforced! Well that obviously ends in terrible things happening - we can look at Russia or Germany as prime examples of what happens in a government with collectivist ideals instead of individualist ideals.

As far as Marx's economics, one needs to look no further than the writings of Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk - maybe start with "Capital and Interest". In it Bohm-Bawerk gives a very good explanation and overturns Karl's labor theory of exploitation. He goes much further in his later book "History and Critique of Interest Theories" which can be borne accurate just by looking at parts of US history from 1700 or so through even to present times. The USA's economic ecumenic control system(s) hijacked in 1900 or so didn't show it's full evil nature plainly until "the Great Depression" - the same kind of hubris which is being seen again in today's current climate. Can you feel it? Can you smell it? I can, pwhew, whatta stench! But this is and was a hijacking of the system, an attack by people who should be imprisoned and not a result of the system itself. This is an important distinction to make. Without it many wrong conclusions will be drawn.

But again I reiterate that it matters not what conclusions we draw if we only sit and do nothing about it. ;)

"As national monetary authorities, central banks should create non-cash money (that is, bank-account money) as well as cash (that is, banknotes and coins). They should create out of thin air at regular intervals the amounts they decide are needed to increase the money supply. They should give these amounts to their governments as debt-free public revenue. Governments should then put the money into circulation by spending it."

This do not work. Checked by real life :-)
Look at bank managers, now look at your "elected" goverment, now back to managers.
You still want this goverment to decide? :-)
And it badly correspond to your words.

"Commercial banks will be prohibited from creating money. They will have to borrow already existing money in order to lend it, as other financial intermediaries do."

I think Robertson has some problem concerning banks.
He (as you, also) costantly refers to "prohibiting from creating money".

I also really liked obstacles/objections part. It seems that you forget the author as it listed few objections raised by me. Unfortunately he did not provide any real (not just formal) answers to objections.

And, of course, as true liberal he must constantly cite that "no centralisation will occure" and globalization is good, we just need same reform, so good guys (tm) will have right to print money intead of current bad guys (tm).

>Generally it is I and readers of this topic who are wasting their time here as you are unable to explain basic ideas that lie behind magic "ban the fractional system" approach.

Am i? By the way, I don't see readers of this topic expressing those remarks.

>After you are removing ability to invest $1000 to get additional income (the lower reverve requirement and the better is economic environment - the more times you can invest in the same period) you are removing medication from patient.

Is that so? If x amount of money is needed, you can always inject that much money into the economy. No need for banks to handle this money and ask 10 times interest. And risk that banks are sitting on this money in times of lower confidence!

>1. Multiplication is not happening in practice as you write, as I said it is oversimplification.

No? Formula from your wikipedia page for money multiplier : m = 1/ReserveRatio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier


>2. Fractional system had been made not as some cancer on top of capitalism system. But, instead, as very effective medication.

How so?

>This is why I pointed at Marcx works. Being dynamic, this sytem effectively fights money supply shortages that occure in capitalism due to it's nature.

Agreed, but fighting money shortages should't benefit commercial banks by charging interest on the extra amount of money created.

>And then it is not necessary or situation do not allow it, multiplication factor collapses even whithout needing to change reserve requirement. And in most cases it is not only banks who are responsible, but people and firms :-) This is why I constantly asked you about inner working of it :-)

Which i find i explained in detail, but for some reason doesn't come across. The whole point is that there will not ever be a multiplication factor again. M (how it is calculated is debatable) will be entirely issued by the government, so we won't have to be dependent on "market confidence" to guarantee our money supply. Banks can gamble all they want from then, because it won't affect our money supply. Of course they can go bankrupt that way, but it won't affect our economy drastically like it does now (only from a few thousand people losing their job, but not from millions of people losing their savings!)


>4. As soon as you remove fractional system, your remove medication, system becomes highly ineffective, requiring constant manual mode.

You say it doesn't require manual mode right now? ECB, FED interest rates serve the purpose of trying to control the money supply. Only it would be much easier if they poured the money in the economy directly (by spending or lending it for the public good) instead of letting it pass through commercial banks, who -like we have seen- just accumulate it in times of sinking confidence (at bottom interest rates because the central bank needs to increase the supply).


>5. You also become head to head with responsibility problem and increasing operational costs problem. Reducing overall premium you reduce actual responsibility and whole mechanisms become ineffective in a short time.

Whose costs? Whose responsability? Please don't be cryptic and specify!

>Removing fractional system you also increase costs for short credits (like overnight) that are required to meet central bank demends at certain time of a day (one guy get his $1000 deposit and now you need to get $1000 overnight credit fast :-) ).

This proves you do not see the implications of Robertson's proposal, most probably because you have not read it!! (Damn it, i can't believe i'm wasting my time here. I must like you a lot Vitaliy!)
Let me explain again : in the new system, after seigniorage reform, a 1000$ deposit is not on the bank's balance sheet anymore, like it is now. The bank cannot lend it out. The bank can only lend out her own assets! That is why it's called the end of fractional reserve banking.

"Alex Jones' rhetoric is flawed time and time again with conspiracy theories that don't hold up. If you want balanced and correct information, read James Robertson."


There's a LOT of "correct" information about a LOT of different things and a LOT of different people. There's no such thing as balanced tho! It's either correct or it's not. It can align in a million different directions - and no false choices need to be offered in the guise of being "balanced". Robertson seems like a very practical economist. But he's not a news man. This is the mistake you and most other people make when evaluating Alex Jones. I think what you say is funny because Alex Jones himself has no theories of his own at all. He's a news man. He simply reports what others are saying and doing. If Margret Singer is on record as saying that the way to kill "these black weeds" is to pose as a sympathetic liberal with socialist ideas and then soft kill them with drugs, diseases, abortion, and internal conflict then that's what he reports. That's just one of thousands of examples from among many Generals, Presidents, Dictators, Powerful Bank men, and what some call "The Elite". People not willing to go out and research the quotes and information or bother to find out it's true then immediately point to Alex and call him a "Conspiracy Theorist". It's a mistake tho. He's just a News Man. One of the few honest ones the USA has left - at least with the balls to report what he finds.

I just thought I would mention that now that the conversation has slowed down a little. ;) So the next time you hear someone call Jones a conspiracy theorist just remember... none of what he's saying is from his own ideas - it's something that has actually occurred or something the The Club Of Rome, A Rockefeller, a Rothschild, a Carnegie, a Head of state, the CFR, NSA/CIA has written, said, done or was reported to have said or done by a legitimate news service. He even goes miles farther and interviews (live on-air) the people who have said or done or reported on such things.

To paraphrase in the most critical way possible: People who call Alex a conspiracy theorist are a) too lazy to do the research to find out what's what. b) scared of what's happening around them and would rather hide by confusing themselves with the pass-times we've been handed (like the levers of economy - something we as individuals have no control over, can't affect, and is convoluted enough to keep the public discussion going eternally) or, c) are involved somehow having an active interest in either the goals of these elite criminals or have some interest in a cover-up thereof.

:)

Why would i need to carry on alone? I agree with much of what you say by the way. Although i find this discussion is not about socialism (of which we need more) or capitalism (of which we need less).

Interesting discussion.

I very much believe in what John has said. Unfortunately though when it comes to socialism and the distribution/re distribution of wealth I struggle to get past human nature/the insatiable appetites of the human ego.

When I first left high school I worked for a few months unloading trucks in a super market... what I witnessed was a bewildering display of people attempting to seize power or use anything they could to wield it over others, all for positions of such scarce actual worth or power as to make the whole endeavour border on nothing short of insanity. It stunned me. If people were willing to do so much for power when virtually nothing was as stake... What wouldn't they do to preserve to true economic power and wealth I wondered???

I became very interested in conspiracy theories when I was in my twenties, but over time I grew painfully wise enough to know, that it's almost impossible to truly know the truth about anything... and so now I find that I instead tend to filter all information that I am fed or find via my simple observations of human nature. Perhaps I'm far too simplistic. I can appreciate that, but as I also understand things, all systems and ideologies unfortunately share the same common flaw, humanity. This certainly does not mitigate anything John has said, nor the value of better men than I seeking to find a better way forward for all. But I confess, peace loving as I am, it's hard put to see any serious mass change ever taking place as Vitaliy says without a serious global civil war.

I suspect it will be both... And am inclined towards Mao Tse Tungs... "Sometimes you have to build something up, before you can tear it down" point of view. For much like FCP X :) - some things need to be rebuilt from the ground up... But hey, Fight Club is one of my favourite films, so I could well be just another ego engorged human looking for stimulus and meaning through destruction, righteousness and change.

Finally FWIW from someone who may well lack the intellectual clout of yourselves John and Vitaliy... I simply believe in three things to bring about genuine global change, baring in mind that I see a direct correlation between economic wisdom and personal/emotional wisdom...

As such for me it's all about education; on an individual and highly personal emotional level. Suffering; as for better or worse it seems to go hand in hand with education and change for our species. The only way many of us seem willing or able to evolve is kicking and screaming... Human evolution seems to operate with a pretty severe bell curve.

Lastly, capping wealth. But I just can't that ever taking place without bloodshed, as any sustained endeavour in my opinion will either be corrupted, twisted and re marketed for profit by those who have the power, means and motivation to do so - or wars fought over to stop... I'd like to be wrong however.

Thanks for the read by the way... What may become passe or frustrating for you two, I'm sure like myself others find "educational" in a most positive sense and uplifting.

Carry on gentelmen :D

Best
LW

>It is quite common misunderstanding and oversimplification.

It's fact. European parliament proposed measures to augment the fractional reserve from around 3% to 9%, because of the financial crisis it created. But this is no solution. A solution is to have a 100% fractional reserve = no fractional reserve.

>I really like your agressive style. But we must keep discussion on point and to go into personalities.

I agree, but then you shouldn't initiate personal attacks by telling me you have a strong suspicion i "do not understand how it is all working in reality". :)

Look Vitaliy, i like your thinking outside the box. It created the GH13 and now in this forum we discuss economics and politics, which i like to do. But only on the basis of fact. I cannot prove Rosling's stats, so i shut up about them. But i do know about fractional reserve banking, so there's little to dispute here. Either you know about this or you don't. But if you don't, this discussion is not interesting for me.

Can you describe how fractional system works in real life?
As "it means that banks lend from the central bank, and are allowed to lend more than ten times (up to hundreds of times) this amount to customers" is not how it works.
It is quite common misunderstanding and oversimplification.

>You can doubt my intelligence and whether i understand this system, but not before you understand fractional reserve banking.

I really like your agressive style. But we must keep discussion on point and not go into personalities, ok?

>If you really care to know a detailed answer to this question, you can find it in Robertson's book.

@johnnym
This is forum. So you can't constantly answer to all questions in a way that all must read book you like.
If it contains some valuable things tell them without much details, and make proper link to specific book and chapter to get more details.

>But banks will only be able to lend what they have (like everyone else finally), and not lend out 10x more, taking away the unfair advantage ("subsidy") they have had since 17th century.

Please can you describe that you understand under "lend what they have" and that under "lend out 10x more".
As from your words I have strong suspicion that you do not understand how it is all working in reality.

> private investors, banks

My understanding reading few reviews and short summaries of his books is that central bank will replace commercial banks. Or I got something wrong here?

@johnnym

OK.

I just want to ask simple question (I already raised similar concerns but they passed unnoticed).
Who exactly in this theory will be responsible for lending money to people or firms?
I do not mean central bank, as it can't do it.
History also proved that any branches consisting of goverment clerks can't do it, because they do not have any real responsibility.