Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Why iceland should be on the news but isnt(long read)

StateOfMind

Don Juan
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not

An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.
 

joverby

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
599
Reaction score
9
Great read. Ya, it would be pretty tough to completely break away in this day and age Danger. Ron Paul wants to though. I'm sure most of us are aware of that though.

Bravo to Iceland though. That is pretty disturbing they were trying tax citizens that much to pay for private bankers mistakes.

It's a shame some of the bankers got away. May justice prevail.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
The reason you don't hear about Iceland "revolution" is because their population and economy is the size of middle sized city. There is plenty of cities this big going bankrupt all over European continent.

The reason I don't find their behavior inspiring is:

They produce nothing but still want to live like Lords and they did.

It wasn't enough for them so they started to play Little Switzerland.

Banks are (supposed) to be controlled by state, therefore there is responsibility for the state to warn investors in case of troubles and/or reimburse them when they fail. With no guarantees no investors would bother to spend their money there.

Private citizens' bank accounts are guaranteed by state for sure. When Icelander have bank account in Britain and the bank goes down, British government will reimburse him. That is the deal. It should work for British citizens in Iceland too.

Deals should be honored.
Meanwhile Icelanders avoided responsibility by simply changing rules over night - new constitution. They profited from the deals when the going was good and now it went to hell they play dumb.

It is similar to situation when you lend money to a couple. They buy lots of stuff, renovate the house and invest in some ****ty business. They loose your money and are not able to pay you back. Instead of selling their house and so on, She divorces her husband keeps the house and claims that now they are no longer a couple and the deals is off.

Instead of being dishonest, Icelanders should prosecute those responsible for bad decisions and confiscate as much money they could. Of course it wouldn't be enough, the money was lost to credit crunch crisis, so a few years of no new roads, payments to single mothers etc. would have to ensue. Resulting in either Iceland population to scatter across continent or Iceland joining European Union.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danel,

While I agree with the morality of your position, it is built upon sand.

The fiat banking system is unsustainable and the people are the one's who have to pay the price for it, while the nations and bankers reap the rewards.

As long as we have a banking system that guarantees default and poverty (lend 10 for 11 when only 10 exist) then there are no rules.

Citizens who are unable to comprehend what this monetary system does, should not have to pay the price for it. This example shows how some have paid the price, while others threw off the shackle, if only for a time.

Make no mistake, usury is slavery, be it direct or indirect. Whether some of us are forced into bankruptcy for not finding the 11th dollar that never existed, or whether we are all forced to pay the price through inflation on printing that 11th dollar......we all pay the price.

This is the cost of shackling the ignorant masses with a broken monetary system. Sadly nobody will learn anything from it and we will be doomed to repeat the same mistakes some 80 years from now.
I understand your reservations towards our current economy. I do see the disadvantages and risks. However I don't know of any better variant. And I believe our current problems could have been prevented with proper application of existing control mechanisms. And maybe we need more of those or better ones.

Fiat currency seems counter intuitive as inventing virtual money not backed by something solid. But you have to realize the reasons for it.

It is all about expectations. You expect that the young man asking you for money will create something solid. There is not enough gold to backup all the progress, inventions and investments.

The real problem is in taking advantage of this system. Eating the air money instead of turning them to something worthwhile. And we are all guilty of that. People vote for governments which promise easy ride:
*"Free" health, school, roads
*Welfare which let's you live like a king instead of just helping you to survive
*Support for single mothers - Danes have almost 0 marriages because of it
*Sponsored mortgages
* Promises of taking over personal debts

That's just populism and irresponsibility of the same kind as in case of personal buying stuff you don't need on credit, taking mortgages and school loans on gender studies.

And lying about the numbers - Greece. Hungary- to get more credit.

Todays crisis is not because of FIAT, it is bc of GLUTTONY.

You can avoid slavery, which is so convenient for many btw, by not wanting anything from state or banks (if you can't pay back) and silently bribe the 'slaves enjoying the virtual steak' in form of taxes or they will rise and strip you of all your money-resulting in chaos.

Actually Clinton is to be blamed. He discarded the ban on investment banks to do commercial banking services, which was in place after the last crisis before WW2. I guess the reason for that is you are not forced by voters to do a bailout in case of investment bank which has no private money - mortgages. Therefore the bank is more cautious - no help will come.
 

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
55
But how will we maintain our artificial growth rate if we don't have access to other peoples money??? :confused:
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
This is an oft repeated fallacious argument. There is PLENTY of gold, silver, nickel, copper, etc,... of precious metals to have an intrinsically valued currency.

The currency does not "back up" all of the items we have created, it was never meant to "back" it. There is no link there whatsoever. There is a supply/demand of goods, then there is a supply/demand of money. One is not backed by the other.
I thought it is the main reservation towards FIAT, that banks reserve are not covered in gold leading to what you call air money. If we got back to that, you would see vans with gold criss-crossing the world between banks, I guess. There is no need for gold when there is trust, that you will get your money back. The trust is supported by the fact that there is a limit on air money you can lend and insurance of deposits.

I believe that money stand for goods and services and are interchangeable. That is the whole point of that. It may seem that it lives separate lives, because money or debt is also a commodity. I guess, when the correlation between money and goods/services is damaged...then you can see the problems, we have now.
Fiat feeds gluttony, do you not see? We print more because we want more stuff.
Yes I am aware of that. I just think that the advantages like more dynamic economy and relative ease of borrowing money, are far greater than disadvantages like speculation, borrowing money to buy useless stuff etc.

Economical growth is important, we don't want to "overheat" it, of course but everything works faster this way...more roads and repairs, more new technologies and I don't mean just consumer ones. Finding the balance and letting "die" those who can't control themselves is a way to go.
But that is just the beginning of why Fiat is the problem. Compounding interest on a debt backed currency will crush you every time, that is the non-negotiable reason to end fiat. The math is inescapable. I do not know why this is so hard for people to grasp.
I just don't see any better alternative. Alternative which keeps the growth going. And by growth I mean new technology, medicine, roads etc.

Lend 10 for 11 when only 10 exist.
I can see no problem with that IF the bank gets it's (their depositors') money back and the 1 is created by the using the 10 to create something worth of 12, maybe.

When your property can be seized to pay for the latest things the mob demands, you cannot avoid slavery.
Democracy is what it is. Platon always thought that the mob will take eventually over. Again I can see no better system. Dictatorships are not safe from mob.
When your savings is devalued through the stealth tax called inflation, you cannot avoid slavery.

When money is only borrowed into existence, you cannot avoid slavery.

It is a very simple concept.
Only other option I see, is to start hunting gathering again. Changing furs for salt. But it will eventually start again all over....
gold instead of salt,
signed notes instead of gold,
lending money to entrepreneurs
and when you don't have enough money, you just print it,
because hopefully the entrepreneur will turn them into something solid.
Voila, you have FIAT back.

Only working solution is the same as in case of ecological cure....population reduction. But it is happening already....more prosperous you get, less children are born. So please no harsh solutions. We have enough of ecologists, terrorists, anarchists and killers.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Not true. Paper representing gold can be used for trading, it does not have to by physical gold.
Yes in case there is one trusted world central bank, which holds the gold for all the banks. Otherwise you will want your gold under roof.


Money does not stand for anything, it is simply a mechanism of exchange. A store of value that facilitates trade. Money is not backed by goods and services, very different.
I give you money, you do something for me or you give me something or you promise me that you will repay me + interest later.
example 1 USD = 5 bananas so it stands for 5 bananas

Borrowing at interest creates artificial credit booms and busts that get us where we are today.
No, borrowing at interest or no interest in order to buy something you can't afford/repay creates the problems.

Your presumption that a fixed dollar amount does not create growth is absurd, why would it not?
My presumption was that fixed dollar amount is not as flexible in dealing with spikes of supply and demand in monetary market.

You still are not getting it. There is no extra 1 being created. You can develop all of the new goods and services in the world, but that does not create a new dollar with which to repay that 11th part of the debt. Only new money borrowed can do that.
New goods and services generate profit. You borrow ten, you use it to plant bananas and you sell the bananas for 20, you repay 11 and you keep 9.

A gold standard with no usury works perfectly fine. All sorts of wealth was created that way through-out history.

The greatest problem with the gold standard is that it does not allow Politicians to hide their pork vote buying projects throught the stealth tax of inflation.
Like Wall street crash?
Usury...hmm...without "usury" why would anybody lend me money? Why would he take a risk I don't repay?
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danl,

You still are not getting it. How do I sell my bananas for 20 when only 10 exist? The only way for 20 to exist is if someone else borrowed another 10.

This would mean that 20 has been borrowed into existence, 22 needs to be repaid.

Usury IS the problem. The math does not work, it forces continual debt increases. Stop trying to argue and instead think about it for a minute.





What is the risk exactly? Money was printed out of nothing, and if you cannot repay, he takes all of your property. He takes no risk at all! In fact, the borrower assumes ALL of the risk.

Again Danl, stop and think about this before you argue just for the sake of arguing.

Back before usury was allowed, contracts were made in leiu of interest. Banks would bring parties together for a fee. If a man needed money for a business venture, either the bank or a group of investors would supply 90% of the money (or some percentage) and thus would collect 90% of the profits. The man would have the option of buying back a certain percentage of the business each year with his profits. By the fourth or fifth year often they would own 50% of the business they had started.

None of this required usury.
I don't have time and skills to explain to you the complexities and fundamentals of financing. So I found a presentation I understood so you would too.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Multiplier effect and the money supply

Hope it will broaden you horizons and stear you clear from half-explained bs like this Bvllsh1t conspiracy

If you want to find conspiracy, check out China CB weakening yuan, buying US treasury bonds, which "steals" production base and allows cheap $ - loans. Loans spend on bs, therefore there are no money for investments.

KGB disinformation is after you! :eek: :whistle:
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
THAT is your response???


Straw man much? Every point you came up with, I countered with factual information. Now you resort to attacking and calling me a conspiracy theorist??? Who said anything about a conspiracy???

My degree is in economics dip$hit. I know what I am talking about. If you cannot follow simple math, and your final response is instead to attack me and call me names, then that is your weakness.

Money only being borrowed into existence guarantees bankruptcy. Lend 10 for 11 when only 10 exist.

Call me all of the names you want, but you cannot escape the reality of the math.

Come back when you have an actual counterpoint instead of continually changing the subject in a vain attempt to hide your lack of knowledge on how finance and economics works.




AGAIN.......you cannot respond to my statement below. I know it, you know it, the whole board knows it.

Show me one method that money can be created by not borrowing it into existence. Just ONE.
I haven't call you anything. What you presented is similar to conspiracy I posted link to.
EDIT: It sort of implicated that you are a retard. My apologies.
I'm terribly sorry, I thought I wrote to another thread, which was deleted, I guess. It was about Ron Paul and Gold standard and FRS and you know. And in the heat of a moment I reacted to your quote, not checking your prior posts, which are of course reasonable. Again, I'm sorry.

Breath deep. Live long and prosper. And watch the video tutorial.
 
Last edited:

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danl,

Apology accepted, although you are still calling me a conspiracy theorist, which I am not. I never posted a link to that video, nor have I referenced it in any way.

By your logic, you may as well call anyone that believes in God a terrorist since many terrorists yell "God is Great" as they kill.

I have watched the video. However you are still building a strawman by equating my position with that video.

All I am asking is for you (or anyone) to show one method of creating money without attaching it to debt. I hardly think that asking for that information makes me a conspiracy theorist.
That was a mistake. The first paragraph should have been deleted. I started to write that, then edited, then realized I made mistake and I forgot to delete it.

I don't think Danger's posts have anything to do with conspiracy. Sorry for the double f@ck up.

The video I posted in my last post is from Khan university not a conspiracy.
I just wanted to know if you approve the reasoning in it.

I think that first you need to sweat before creating wealth. So when you create money it sorta represents debt? Do you know a method how to create money without attaching it to debt?
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Money does not represent debt at all. It is merely a medium of exchange, or a store of value. It should exist without having to service debt through interest payments.

We have two kinds of money that are not attached to debt.

  1. Precious metals, they have intrinsic value. It is not someone else's debt that you in herit, but rather the embodiement of the "sweat" use dto take it out of the ground.
  2. Tally sticks. They are an inexhaustable supply of money for a Government that does not require an attachment to debt, and thus do not require the constant expanding of the money supply (more debt) to service the original debt.

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

Unfortunately, tally sticks do not allow profits for banks. Well, at least not the risk-free usury kind of profits.
Interesting.
My question is Can you create more wealth without expanding money supply?
Liquidity might be a problem.
You want to build new factory.
Now you just ask the bank, you don't have to look for investors with available disposable money.

Usury is bad. But interest is necessary I guess. Example. When my friend asked me for $, I took interest from him which equaled the interest I would get from bank . But later on I was at lost anyway, bc I didn't have enough money to buy a bargain house. I should have ask more interest to compensate for my "loss of opportunity".

You may ask, why a system of paper currency rather than the gold standard? Well, to be honest there are pros and cons for both systems. The gold standard tends to be inflexible and rigid, and has difficulty in keeping up with the number of goods and services in the economy. On the other hand, the dollar has a better chance of retaining or increasing its value under the gold standard (this may or may not be a good thing, depending on circumstances). A paper currency standard, while being very flexible and capable of being expanded and contracted to match the number of goods and services available in the economy very easily, can subject the economy to inflationary pressure if not managed carefully. Most economists tend to agree that the shift to a goods-and-services-based monetary standard has been an overall benefit to the economy in the long term.
And I agree with above.
The old golden days were not all that bright.

As long as we keep balanced deficit , stop printing $ to pay for things which don't make revenue we should be alright. I agree that for things that make political revenue like waging wars and fighting poverty, taxes are better source of $.

edit:
Royal tallies (debt of the Crown) also played an infamous role in the formation of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danl,

Banks used to put entrepeneurs together with investors and take a fee. No interest was involved.

Also, banks used to partake in the business venture itself, taking a percentage of the profits as opposed to charging interest. The difference between that and usury being that the banks have to take a risk when they partake in the venture.
Yes but it seems it would make it more costly and it would complicate decision making. Sometimes it is just more efficient to ask for loan, let them do risk assessment and you are good to go with no risk of partner/shareholder having second thoughts/cold feet.

So the answer to your question is, yes wealth can be created without increasing the money supply. I know I have said this multiple times, but it seems you are having a difficult time seperating the quantity of money with the existence of goods and services. Remember that the quantity of goods and services is not dependent on the money supply.....it is only price that is a function of the money supply.
According to this explanation
If the economy grows in size, the money supply must grow with it so that prices remain stable; otherwise, prices will decline because the quantity of goods and services will increase faster than the money supply, resulting in deflation. When the money supply increases faster than the economy, then inflation results. Hence, because goods and services have an intrinsic value and because their quantity is limited by their profitability to the suppliers, the nominal price of the goods and services is primarily determined by the quantity of money in the economy.
air money seems to be more able to control deflation.

By the way, your quote does not mean that tallies represented actual debt in that they were borrowed into existence. Tallies were created by the crown and spent on goods and services, and then taxed back out of existence. It was an endless supply of revenue for the Government. Of course, it was still subject to the laws of economics and had to be taxed back otu of existence in order to keep it's value stable.
I just found it funny it had 'debt' in name. just a poke
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
It only seems more complicated because it is different.

More complicated is the necessity of having a central bank to control and set interest rates, intervene in the economy, issue credit to the Government, manage the money supply, etc,....

Air money (credit) is the CAUSE of deflation, just as it is the cause of inflation.

The debt notation is just a wording, but it is not true debt of the crown. I realize that you are poking and to be honest, it seems like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

From a workability perspective, it is more than clear that gold and tally sticks are a much better method of managing the economy than fiat and credit. From a moral perspective, I have to go with the same logic, simply because it is the fiat/credit system that fuels a lot of today's problems.

Right now .gov prints up massive amounts of dollars to bail out insolvency of banks, corporations and political promises to constituents. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nobody ever asks, where do these "losses" go once we have printed up the money to cover them? The answer is, they go to everyone.

  • They go to the savers by devaluing their life's earnings.
  • They go to the worker who's wages drop artificially (even despite wage increases) and they do not even know it.
  • They go to the Corporations, who's earnings drop, while they simultaneously appear to be making record profits.

That is just one aspect of the downside.

Now we have to consider the effect that takes place several years after the initial money printing. Oil companies make "record" profits, as do other Corporations, and they are seen as the primary culprit for the economy downside. Their "record profits" become a huge target for the Politicians (and peolpe blinded by what is happening) to blame and raid for money.

As expected, this ignites class warfare and political parties put in yet more promises to "distribute the wealth fairly".

It is no coincidence that with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, that socialist policies began to follow in earnest, and continue to rise as time marches on.

No amount of socialism will cure the ills of a credit/fiat system of money. The cycles of booms and busts will occur over and over again, each successive round demanding ever larger injections of socialism to cure the problem.

All of the while, nobody notices that we are simply turning to one form of cancer (socialism) to try and get rid of another kind (fiat) that began in 1913. In the end, both cancers will work together to consume us.
OK. I can agree with that and thank you for your time.

Is there a study of non-fractional reserve banking system you can point me to?

What I know, fractional reserve system with gold standard was unsustainable thanks to Unions and such? Why we abandoned GS.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Social_Leper said:
You're certainly right when you say that any kind of economic system that relies on a system of credit (as is the case with fractional reserve banking) is unsustainable but in what ways have we turned towards socialism?

Inequality has soared in the West since 1913. Anyone who understands the mechanics of the 2008 bank bailouts and the current back door bailouts happening in the Eurozone (European banks are heavily exposed to PIIG debt) can see this is a further transfer of wealth away from the taxpayer in order to shore up weak, feckless financial institutions that would have been punished for their profligacy and replaced in a truly free market system. Or is this the socialism that you speak of?
It is socialism, because of central planning element - authority over supposedly free market. The reason for having it like that is for redistribution of wealth. Government having the ability to create money and control economy assures there will be no high unemployment and many entitlement programs.

Equality sounds nice but it is BS and when striving for it, especially in economics, creates actually more harm than good.
Only scenario when equality will work is when everyone is as dumb as the dumbest person alive. It is against nature.

We should only assure equality in the basic rights. The rest is your own business. It is how the cosmos operates - when you give someone artificial advantage in the expense of another, the natural evolution suffers.

Free markets create accumulation of wealth, but the whole system creates enough wealth that 90% live better and better. It would be nice if you could have 100% inheritance tax and start over but it won't work. When you stop caring about your genes DNA, the system degenerates.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
752
Reaction score
23
Poonani Maker said:
The video is dead link now but I watched it from other sources.

I agree with the documentary however I'm afraid occupy wallstreet crowd did not get it. We don't need more government influence in money sector, we need less. Or corruption will take over inefficient bureaucrats and politicians just love to print money to subsidize, promote, create jobs and spread the wealth.

I came to agree with Danger that fiat money and fractional reserve banking is recipe for disaster bc the central bank either bails out unjustly screwing the market making overall situation worse or it does not bail out and dominoes fall.

Meanwhile balanced budget, 7:3 reserves and ban on investment bank doing commercial too. And every investment broker and fund ceo or whoever risking client's money, should guarantee the investment/deal with 50% of personal property.
 
Top