Honestly, i would love to see all the banks just disperse.

A system that charges interest for money is a drain on the economy's capital. The only way to keep a system like that going is to continually inject money into the system by printing it. The problem is, the federal reserve controls all this money going into the system, and they charge interest for it. This is how they control interest rates. This is also what our national debt consists of (pretty much).

So, the only way to keep the system going is to continually increase that debt exponentially every day, forever. One day we will not be able to afford this debt. When that day comes it will be the end of our economy. Kinda scary huh?

So, what needs to happen, is the government needs to control their own currency. In a sense this is nationalizing the job of our central bank. The other banks need to be left to dispurse.

No interest can be charged for money in a stable economy.

Is there really anyone out there that thinks barry wants to do anything good for this country? After everything that has come to light, I would wonder if they could walk and chew bubble gum at the same time if it isn't as obvious to them that barry's main goal is to reduce us to a third world country, and then leave and go to the one he has true patriotic ties to.

Without interest or capital appreciation of some kind there would be no incentive to save any money except to survive. On the flip side, there would be no incentive for those that saved money to survive to lend any of it. Who could ever buy a house?

Economies adjust accordingly. Nifty thing is building codes would have to relax a bit as people would have to build houses piece by piece perhaps as they can afford it. You would definitely see some drastic lifestyle changes since people could no longer live beyond their means.

I don't have all the answers, but i do have one. Charging interest for money is harzardous to economies. Since the federal reserve bank charges interest for every cent put into circulation, the economy WILL collapse. The Federal reserve puts the principal into circulation "P". The people have to pay principal plus interest(I). P/(P+I) This is mathmatically impossible to achieve stability with.

If you think about it though, this explains a whole lot of "retarded" decisions. This explains why the bailout plan was "just a really big number". This also explains the recessions we have from time to time. It also explains why laws were passed to pressure banks into giving loans at higher risks (they need increasingly more debt every day to keep the circulation going).

And it also explains this:

Banks loan money out based on a 9 to 1 ratio. This means they only have to back up roughly 10% of the money they say they are loaning to people.

The federal reserve gives a bank $1,111.63 in cash. The bank now can legally loan $10,000 dollars to anyone. Then when that person deposits that check, the bank can then loan $9,000 dollars to the next, before any payments are even made. Then $8,000 (roughly), and so on, until it reaches almost $100,000 dollars with a $1,111.63 reserve.

Can anyone else come up with any better explanation to our economy and how it works? Can anyone make any sense of this?

The Bush Administration has already done more to Nationalize the US banking system than any other President...

Drivinmenutz,

You can't have an economy without interest on lent capital. Why, for what reason, am I going to risk the return of capital, if I have nothing to gain in the best scenario? More than that, even if I am assured that my capital will be returned, then why would I deny myself of possession of it? Why even bother? Instead of lending it to someone, I can proceed with consuming it.

Because if this, you will always have interest, even if banned by law. Because of the above, there will always be some benefit to the lender negotiated in connection with the loan. This benefit (in whatever shape or form), plus the principal itself, will de-facto constitute the interest-based lending.

It is not due to the interest, that we have the problems that we have. Our problems stem form the government stealing capital daily from everyone holding USD, while at the same time forcing everyone to hold it. This is done by ignoring the constitutionally allowed money, and using fiat money instead. Central banking and fiat money, one and the same, is half of our problem.

A second half of our problem is people's stupidity. This is why we have compulsory education by government. Just because it pretends to "educate", doesn't make it education yet. An analogy would be to institute compulsory death camp system, but call it "compulsory health improvement system". Because it does not educate, rather it brainwashes it's students, and because it is compulsory, so that only very rich and clever can save their children from it, we have the people stupidity problem.

This problem is manifested by the people being unable to make a correct decision. In effect, it creates millions of primitives, from millions of perfectly good babies. Such a primitive, after being brainwashed, is unable to identify the causes and consequences of economic problems he encounters. He is unable to see, even with help, for instance, how he is being impoverished by a central bank. On the unions, for yet another instance, such a primitive is unable to realize that what he in fact advocates is a lawless society, and that his benefit, if any, is not the benefit that he earns, but a consequence of him being currently on the winning side of two warring gangs.

This primitive, now proudly displaying the "educated" title, then goes on and supports the removal of private property from our system. He has, and cannot have an understanding that what he is doing is removing the responsibility. This is like removing nails from the project. Once responsibility is removed, we can all roam around like wild animals, and indebt each other in what ever we happen to indulge.

Did you not go to school? Because I do not see you pulling on your end of rope. You seem to be genuinely interested in what is wrong with this. This is not normal. Most people only argue to support the arrangement that benefits them. An example in the post somewhere was when I asked someone in a debate on unions, if they are willing to pay for their own consumer goods (such as TVsets, for instance), a sum not based on what the market dictates, but instead, based on the needs of particular producer. That same person, who wanted unions to have power against the market, did not answer directly, but you and I know the answer, obviously they buy as low as possible. I do not think the person is greedy. Instead, I think there is no realization that the labor is just another good. There is no realization that there is always someone else on the other side of every transaction.

What's your deal? Why you aren't interested in forcing others your way?

Not so sure about that Fanta. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 under Carter. This is the act that pressured banks to give out riskier loans. I don't see G.W. having a lot of pull back then...

Besides, both the house and the senate had a Democrat Majority i believe.

Carter also started the department of education, and for all the people who blame Bushfor the economic crisis think about this...

Carter also developed the department of education. Prior to the department of education our educational facilities rated #1 in the world. Since then we have slipped to 12th place.

This was not meant to defend G.W. in the least. It was merely meant to point out a biased everyone has against the republican party instead of the neoconservative party. This kind of thinking will get us into big trouble (and may have already).

If what you are saying is indeed correct, that means it is impossible to have a stable economy. That means that economic crashes will always be inevitable, and we just need to keep starting new ones to keep our lives going.

All my message is trying to provide, is the math behind it all.

BTW why does there need to be lending at all?

If the government prints their own (backed) money, why couldn't they pay their employees with it? Wouldn't that be a way to circulate money?


Do the math, charging extra money for money is a drain on the capital. There is no way around this drain.

If I were responsible for all the currency in the world, but i charged $120 for every $100 dollars i gave you, where do you think you would be in the end? You would have to keep borrowing more money, which would give you bigger payments, forcing you to borrow more money. This process would continue until you eventually went bankrupt. Then your collateral is all mine, as well as all the money i gave you. Think about it. The interest is the biggest enemy in a STABLE economy.

I understand people needing loans for houses, so i guess we have to figure out HOW we can have a system that works... Nationalization is not the answer in any way. I know this. How can we have a system that circulates steadily?

Here, are you referring to your contention that there is the interest paradox, that is responsible for the debt accumulation?




It does not. But what if I want to borrow some capital? In my bid for it, I will offer the highest interest rate I can pay, while the lenders will bid by offering the lowest. You, do not have to pay any interest to anybody, if you want to only use your own capital.










Because govt. employees will not take the script. You have to force everyone else into acceptance of it too, so that your employees that are paid in script, can actually trade the script they earned for something you and I produce.



No. It is a price for time preference. As such, it is a drain, but there is always a price for everything.



Now try the same analysis without central bank.




Nationalization is not an answer, it is a consequence, a price for the sins.

For instance, if you commit a murder and get caught, you can't expect a solution, an answer. You are bound to experience the consequence, to pay the price.

So, we are not always have a freedom to chose a solution. Sometimes, we are bound to only consequences.

I feel like you and i are running around in circles here...

All I was try to say is mathmatically it is impossible to have a stable economy whenever interest is charged for money. In fact if you go back about a thousand years, i think you will find the practice was illegal.

But, as you said, an economy can work much longer if the central banks were eliminated. Much of the problem can be kept in check if currency is back by an actual raw material that a group of people can't just spit out of a machine in any desired amount as well...

No, there is no mathematical problem here. The problem arises when all money are loaned into existence by the central bank.

This is not an American way. By our constitution we are to be on a classical gold standard, i.e. each dollar is a receipt for a stated weight of pure gold, held in warehouse. No central bank. Such system, while uses interest to price the time preference, doesn't have a problem of interest paradox. This is because any lender is only competing for already existing money, and every borrower, earns the principal and the interest back from the general pool, not from the money he borrowed.

Current system is illegitimate as it is anti-American (literally) and unconstitutional. The socialist bastard FDR put it in place to destroy America, in favor of his owners on wall street. FED is a private entity. By the way, it is interesting to note, that all these commies who support FED and paper money, have no idea that this is the direct reason that the poor is getting poorer. But, even in this system, the interest paradox doesn't exist. This is because the interest is there for no other reason, as to create an appearance that the newly made money are legitimate, by "paying an interest on it". It simply gets added to the debt, which literally does not matter. We only own the interest on the paper. We never intend to pay it back and will never pay it back. It is sort of like b!tching about car payments that you have to make all the time, while the car you are talking about is actually stolen. One can do this to create an appearance that the car was "borrowed, rather then stolen. The interest is nothing but fake arrangement in this case, we simply keep count of it, so that the monkeys (foreign lenders and trade partners), keep thinking that we actually borrowed the money from somewhere.

Now, in reference to not charging interest on loans, I promise you this never was is or will be practiced, because there is no such thing as a loan without interest. Even when a brother loans to a brother, there is an interest called "I own you one", which can be quantified in purchasing power and be equated to a particular interest rate.

Bible talked about it. Muslims said to have it. All this is bull****. There is no such thing in free market. If you believe there is, then it would be possible to go and borrow tons of money wherever that is, invest it into interest bearing securities, and make a killing.

However, in the certain sense, the credit is interest free today in USA. The nominal interest rate is 0 - 0.25 %, right? The rate of inflation, even official (which is a lie), is say 6%. This directly means, that any bank, borrowing at the rate of say 0.25%, is GETTING PAID for borrowing money not less than 5.75% a year. This is because the real interest rate is nominal minus real inflation. The FED is actually paying interest to that bank, that borrows money from FED.

I think you misunderstand what i am saying. I said it is mathmatically impossible, for a market containing institutions that charge interest for money, to be STABLE. I never said they couldn't exists. It just won't be very consistent or predictable.

Can you please point me to the source of this? I am aware of accumulating interest such as under the central bank system, but not aware of a mathematical impossibility you have mentioned.