[copious.abundance]

BTW, here is proof you're making up crap about few people having to take out car loans in the 70's:

It's from 2007 but the important part is the historical info:
LINK
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut, to some dealers’ chagrin, cash deals are up in 2007. Some 11.7 percent of buyers paid cash for cars in the first half of this year, versus about 8 percent over the last few years, according to a survey by CNW Marketing Research, which studies car buying habits.

In all, about 26 percent of buyers are bringing cash to the table, whether it is out of their bank accounts or in pre-arranged loans through their credit unions, banks or home lenders, according to the Power Information Network, the research arm of J. D. Power & Associates.

That overall figure is up slightly from last year, but still below the one-third of buyers who paid cash in the 1950s, when customers, many with lingering memories of the Great Depression, came to showrooms with their check books or stacks of bills.

It is in line, however, with the rate during the 1970s and 1980s, before car companies made widespread use of cut-rate loans and discount lease plans.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('copious.abundance', '
')Except that it's not shady characters with questionable motives managing the money supply, it's The People Taking Out Loans.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('copious.abundance', 'B')TW, here is proof you're making up crap about few people having to take out car loans in the 70's:

It's from 2007 but the important part is the historical info:
LINK
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut, to some dealers’ chagrin, cash deals are up in 2007. Some 11.7 percent of buyers paid cash for cars in the first half of this year, versus about 8 percent over the last few years, according to a survey by CNW Marketing Research, which studies car buying habits.

In all, about 26 percent of buyers are bringing cash to the table, whether it is out of their bank accounts or in pre-arranged loans through their credit unions, banks or home lenders, according to the Power Information Network, the research arm of J. D. Power & Associates.

That overall figure is up slightly from last year, but still below the one-third of buyers who paid cash in the 1950s, when customers, many with lingering memories of the Great Depression, came to showrooms with their check books or stacks of bills.

It is in line, however, with the rate during the 1970s and 1980s, before car companies made widespread use of cut-rate loans and discount lease plans.

[ralfy]

In relation to money creation,

"The myth of the money multiplier"

the-myth-of-the-money-multiplier-t67257.html

I'm going to finally get back to this part of the discussion. And to illustrate the complete futility, uselessness and waste of a discussion like this, I'm going to quote just two of Joe's comments, which together illustrate a classic example of the pointlessness of trying to debate someone like him.

To wit: In two replies, Joe was trying to explain his proposed system to me. In both replies he attempted to respond to my objection that the economy would need new money, even under his proposed system. Unfortunately, in doing so he completely contradicted himself (note the bolded passages): In one reply he told me his proposed system wouldn't need any new money. In the other reply, he told me that, "The Federal government would be creating new money every year."

So, which is it?

-- Has he fully thought out his own proposed system? No. In fact, the more I've pointed out the problems with his system, the more obvious it is he hasn't fully thought through the various ramifications of his proposal.
-- Has he fully thought out the various pros and cons of his own system? No. A predictable response here would be something like, the "cons" will be that bankers will be screwed under his system, or some other completely phony reply in which the "cons" to society are really "pros" to his own distorted worldview. Or some similarly twisted logic.

Now, in debates like this, the next predictable step would be to spend the next 4-5 pages, at least, discussing just this one aspect. He'll first accuse me of taking his quotes out of context (even though I haven't), or some other attempt to explain away his contradiction. Then, inevitably I'll bring up some hard-to-refute point which would force Joe to move some goalposts which he would try to get me to chase, and one reply or another would lead to yet another tangent, which would then go on for another 4-5 pages, completely and totally without resolution, etc., etc. Before you know it, we're each spending 10 hours per week just typing out replies to each other in this one thread. But between the goalpost-chasing, the lack of thought about the ramifications of his proposal, the inevitable long sidetracks debating definitions and other minutiae, and so on and so forth, neither of us will change each other's minds. In other words, as I've said, debates like this are a 100% complete waste of time.

So my one and last comment on this topic is thus: When the current fiat money system collapses and something resembling your system is enacted, and it stays intact for at least 20 years without any recessions or depressions, then you can come back to me and say, "I told ya so." LOL!!! Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time on this topic. Any time you want to say something to me, Joe, about the current monetary system, save yourself some time and simply re-read what I bolded in red right there; that is my reply to all your comments on this topic.

And speaking of wasting time, you'll be wasting your time replying to this post, because I'm going to give you a 100% guarantee I won't read it (I don't want to waste my time doing so, after all).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'W')hat part of "fractional reserve banking is outlawed" don't you understand? Again, banks would function as loan brokers, only lending money trusted to them for a time period with the express expectation of interest income, less the bank brokerage fee. Very similar to today's crowd sourced funding. On the other hand, demand accounts would be fully funded (your money is actually in the bank) and a fee assessed for the safekeeping and check clearing functions the bank provides.

No "new money" required. Get it now?

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('copious.abundance', 'I')'m going to finally get back to this part of the discussion. And to illustrate the complete futility, uselessness and waste of a discussion like this, I'm going to quote just two of Joe's comments, which together illustrate a classic example of the pointlessness of trying to debate someone like him.

To wit: In two replies, Joe was trying to explain his proposed system to me. In both replies he attempted to respond to my objection that the economy would need new money, even under his proposed system. Unfortunately, in doing so he completely contradicted himself (note the bolded passages): In one reply he told me his proposed system wouldn't need any new money. In the other reply, he told me that, "The Federal government would be creating new money every year."

So, which is it?

[AirlinePilot]

I find there are very few folks, even intelligent ones, who really understand our current fiat system. The relationship between the Fed, the Government, and the banking Oligarchy is not understood by many. Its meant to be that way. It takes real effort, study, and TIME to grasp the reality of how we are all being played. Folks refuse to believe it. Put the blinders of normalcy on. Everything has been ok for a long time....why should I worry?

I have divested myself of the markets, and hope for the best. All I worry about now is protecting my pile as best i can. I pray the system will remain intact, but without some sort of truth and fiscal responsibility this all ends very badly and history will be your guide.

[Rod_Cloutier]

I live on the opposite end of the economic pyramid. I usually don't have two nickles to rub together, and I live entirely paycheque to paycheque with no savings whatsoever to preserve.

The existing fiat currency will keep going so long as average Joe's like myself can buy staple goods with it. With all of its flaws, and the corrupt system with which it it is administered by, fiat currency is still far superior to barter. The point at which I have to raise chickens in my back yard to exchange them for something else is the point of collapse of the fiat dollar.

I don't want to raise chickens, or stand out on a cold street corner bartering one thing for another. I'd much rather keep my day job, commute to and from my cubicle, and have a 100% corrupt fiat dollar system to buy stuff with. I think 99.9% of the population likes fiat money or it wouldn't exist.

The level of specialization in our civilization could not be supported with a barter system. How do you barter sitting in a cubicle dispatching trucks for food? How do you barter cleaning senior citizens apartment buildings for rent? How to you barter tending the green at a public golf course to equate with an 'X' amount of electricity at home? The majority of our highly specialized society would have to give up their careers, and return to agriculture, or to the provision of basic services just to survive; no one wants to do this.

Those at the bottom of the economic pyramid, who are more aware than those in the middle or those who are at the top, of the corruption, of the favoritism, and of the complete unfairness of the existing system, will let the system continue because we don't want to barter. We don't want to stand out in the cold selling crap, or give up our day jobs. Woe to those at the top or middle of the pyramid structure when it does go. The people at the bottom won't maintain the power structure if we can't buy staple goods, and we have to barter.

When the fiat dollar goes; the power structure that is, becomes the power structure that was. That's the real truth that those at the top are worried about. While those in the middle are merely trying to preserve their wealth, the sociopaths at the top of the structure are worried about keeping their heads attached to their bodies.

[joewp]

Repent, barter isn't the only alternative. Trading with a convenient commodity that keeps its value and is durable is the middle ground. It doesn't even have to be precious metals. In Colonial days in the US, tobacco was used as money.

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') find there are very few folks, even intelligent ones, who really understand our current fiat system. The relationship between the Fed, the Government, and the banking Oligarchy is not understood by many. Its meant to be that way. It takes real effort, study, and TIME to grasp the reality of how we are all being played. Folks refuse to believe it. Put the blinders of normalcy on. Everything has been ok for a long time....why should I worry?

[AirlinePilot]

The point to take away here is that you and I dont get to choose. Fiat currencies fail usually because they reach the end of their "ponzi scheme". The end usually comes quickly with little warning except for those who are paying very close attention. When the paper you use..or even the 1's and 0's in the computer lose their value it doesnt matter anymore who is using it for whatever reason.

The larger problem comes from not only the reset of the value of a dollar, but the inability of the lower end economy to absorb the losses due to it. There are literally TONS of examples of fiat currencies failing throughout history. The shift after the failure is always painful. We could choose a more stable but still painful path, only the Oligarchy in charge doesnt want to wreck their scam while it still works for them. Its too profitable for them to give up!