Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 33 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have more than once suggested that the corporate form be abolished, business and personal taxes be treated exactly the same, the right to privacy of people from business be the same as businesses from people, that theft laws be equalized (stealing from a corporation is an automatic felony no matter how small the amount), copyrights and patents be done away with etc. I know how binding arbitration often works against the little guy. I want the bailouts to stop. I have also pointed out many of our foreign wars had more to do with making the world safe for capitalism, not democracy. I suspect I have at least as thorough knowledge about business abuse of law as you. If you haven't heard me say these things, you haven't been listening.
Fair enough. Though I think you know I'm talking about regulation and "oversight" that operates under the guise of "consumer protection", yet operates more to protect the vested interests of entrenched business than anything else. I seem to recall you've operated a small business at one time or another, so I assume you've dealt with the overhead created by unnecessary regulation schemes.
Anyway, I'll figure you're on my side when it comes to getting corporate influence out of legislation.
Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
back later
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Banks can't lend money they don't have" doesn't require any proof on your part, Citizen ? Everyone else's assertions require some kind of proof, but yours don't ? Isn't that just a tad - hypocritical ?
BTW - both SignyM and I have provided you with definitions that show that banks are not required to 100% back their loans with actual cash. As for you - you've got nothing.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Banks can't lend money they don't have" doesn't require any proof on your part, Citizen ? Everyone else's assertions require some kind of proof, but yours don't ? Isn't that just a tad - hypocritical ?
You're the one doing it Rue, and yes you are being a hypocrite.
And clearly, at least in your mind, everyone (or at least you) doesn't have to back up their assertions, clearly in your mind the only people who have to back up their assertions are those you don't agree with. I can't say I'm surprised, it would seem to be your standard MO.
Quote:
BTW - both SignyM and I have provided you with definitions that show that banks are not required to 100% back their loans with actual cash. As for you - you've got nothing.
On the contrary, clearly you've got nothing as per usual. Except more RueFacts of course, not that I expect better from someone who is basically AURaptor for the Democrats.
All you've provided is definitions that show banks don't have to back their loans with their own money, which shit, is something I said myself (I know you didn't read it though, not liking to listen to anything you disagree with). Not once have you shown even a little evidence that indicates that they invent money from the ether. I've yet to see any evidence that any bank has ever purposefully and legally added extra zeros to their ledger. The fact you claim your 'evidence' proves things it clearly doesn't, is absolutely nothing new for you.
Also, the existence of Reserve requirements and Capital requirements implies banks can't make up money from nowhere. Why would they NEED a reserve if they can just invent cash on demand? Obviously they wouldn't.
If they could just invent money whenever they wanted, as you erroneously claim, there'd be no need for the bailouts, because a bank couldn't go bust. Since banks can and do run out of money, clearly they can't create money on a whim. Neither have you managed to argue against the fact that IF banks could create money on a whim, then money would have no value. Preferring to skirt around the issue, post out of context quotes without cites, and claim what opinion pieces and definitions you have posted, prove things they don't even begin to support.
You claim that banks can create money out of thin air, but you've only proved that you can't create an argument out of the same medium.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creditcrunch.php
Banks Create the Money They Lend
Bankers will tell you that they do not create money. At a 10% reserve requirement, they simply lend out 90% of their deposits. The catch is that their “deposits” include the money they have written into their customers’ accounts as loans. That is how loans are made: numbers are simply written into the accounts of borrowers, as many reputable authorities have attested. Here are two of them, dating back to when officials were either more aware of what was going on or more open about it:
“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”
– Robert B. Anderson, Treasury Secretary under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report
“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.”
– Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)
The process by which banks create money was detailed in a revealing booklet put out by the Chicago Federal Reserve titled Modern Money Mechanics.2 The booklet was periodically revised until 1992, when it had reached 50 pages long. It is written in somewhat difficult prose, but here are a few relevant passages:
“The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.” [p3]
Translation: banks create money.
“In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency.” [p3]
Translation: banks can create as much money as they want by writing loans into their borrowers’ accounts, limited only by (a) legal reserve requirements (money that must be held in reserve – traditionally about 10% of outstanding deposits and loans) or (b) the amount of money they will need to keep on hand to pay any depositors who might come for their money (also traditionally about 10%).
“Banks may increase the balances in their reserve accounts by depositing checks and proceeds from electronic funds transfers as well as currency.” [p4]
There is more, well documented and annotated. I suggest you read it.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And you still have nothing to back up your assertions.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, Rue, I see you beat me to the post.
Quote:from How Stuff Works
Banks create money in the economy by making loans
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't have a direct answer. I can't point to "who" because I'm more interested in "how". How does power concentrate? How can we keep it from concentrating? So my answer is - everybody. And nobody.
Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?
You can't distribute power by creating a centralized overseer... bc haven't you just centralized power? I want to push decision-making, revenue distribution, communication, ethics to the lowest possible level. Every function should be governed by a board drawn from its members. There should be no office of "President". I know I've explained this several times already so I'm not going to re-explain it again, but hopefully this refreshes your memory.
HOW do we get "there" from "here"?
Well, I doubt that corporations would tolerate wholesale abandonment of the concept, so the best thing would be to chip away at corporate privilege while instituting better shareholder and employee representation, and at the same time encouraging the formation of cooperatives by creating better business forms (paradigms and contracts beyond the direct-democracy form currently allowed by law).
AFA government is concerned, there are two things that MUST happen: the media MUST allow ample free time/ space for viable candidates at the national and state level. Money is an overwhelmingly corrupting and winnowing influence. One of the reasons third parties don't get a fair vote is because they don't get exposure. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNTIL THAT HAPPENS! The second is that election process (including registration) must be fair, open and auditable. Eventually, we should go to the popular vote.
Those would be MY "baby steps".
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I don't have a direct answer. I can't point to "who" because I'm more interested in "how". How does power concentrate? How can we keep it from concentrating? So my answer is - everybody. And nobody.
Now, what about my "who decides?" questions?
"How" is fine. But I'm not sure you got my questions. You've proposed to eliminate profit as a deciding factor in determining who wins and loses. (And by "wins" and "loses", I'm referring to which companies succeed and continue operations, and which ones don't.) You've also stated the desire to task the government with preventing "concentrations of power", so I'm interested how we detect a concentration of power and curtail it. I'm also interested in what you're definition of an unacceptable concentration of power is. You seem to be talking about something more commonplace than an actual monopoly.
SergeantX
"It's cold and it's a broken hallelujah"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you still have nothing to back up your assertions.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Neither do you, you've got opinions you're portraying as fact. But as usual your standard for evidence (when you think it supports you) proves you're no scientist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME