What's the benefit for the nation to have its' government borrow money at an interest

Can someone explain to you logicaly and clearly, what is the benefit for the nation to have its' government borrow money at an interest from a private corporation, which then itself prints it, as opposed to getting it printed without the interest? the answer is NO - No one can explain! however, this private corporation, which controls the worlds money supply, has many people sitting on its' welfare, who will fiercely defend this scheme as though their lives depend on it. These people are enemies of humanity, and The goal of our movement is very clear and straight forward: To fully expose this fraud and get rid of this parasite.

You may ask: There are already so many movements, why not join them instead?
The answer is this - most of them are fraud: we research every movement that we find, and attempt to contact its' leaders. Most of the time we are unable to get a response, which would probably be different if we were potential donors rather than what they perhaps consider competition or other wise unworthy of attention. You are invited to join us in our efforts to reach out to any of these other movements which may be willing to unite. Many movements are like an aspiring artist, they care most about establishing their own careers, and another movement to them is like a competition. Many of the movements fiercely speak out against corruption, yet when you look at the plan listed on their web site, they advocate something as meaningless as "pressuring your state representatives" - we, at pvsi.net are convinced that pressuring the current government, sending them letters, filing petitions in hopes of getting an automated response, getting them to do something, is a complete waste of time.

Then there are movements which have been set up by the establishment as a distraction, with intention to control the opposition and to obscure the true movement like ours. To detect these movements and politicians you should ask yourself - how did you hear about them first? if from the establishment media, then you know they're a fraud. if you've heard about it from your friend, ask how your friend heard about it - remember: when the establishment media publicizes these ghost politicians and movements, the great deception lies in the fact that they present them to you, as though they are already popular among society, when in fact, the society merely joins them on a band wagon that they saw on television.

On the establishment media, the US government is being constantly blamed for it's out of control spending, but the reality is, the government is not even in control, and has not been since 1913, when the private institution known as federal reserve was created. The name 'federal' sounds a lot as though it's a part of the government. But it is not.

The criminals who are sitting on welfare of this fraud criminal institution, will fiercely defend not only privatization of this goose that lays the golden eggs, but also the monopoly of money supply: these trolls gloat about the rest of the free world following in their model. We shall never forget in what manner the latest nations were forced to follow their model: take a look at Libya, Iraq, Serbia.

 

...And then there was silence.

 

Because government is bad, mkay. Letting the government print their own money will not limit their ability to be wasteful, warmongering, corrupt morons. Nothing will stop them from ruining a nation's money and markets. They will be much more held in check if there is a price to pay (interest) for their extravagant spending. They need someone to tell them "no, you're unworthy of a loan."

The federal reserve is not a private entity. It is a government-backed monopoly on the monetary supply by which "too big to fail" bankers and the government socialize their losses and manipulate the market.

That's why my argument is to "get government out of money." The government and their semi-private Fed need competition. Central planning macroeconomics is an experiment on 300 million Americans in real-time. What you are blaming on a private entity is actually a central-planning committee (the central banks you speak of us installing in other nations.) Yes, private interests are behind it but they use the government (monopoly of force) as the means to the end.

 

There is no benefit.

Theoretically, it could make sense if the government was investing the borrowed money in public infrastructure that would lead to a higher equivalent rate of return than in the private sector. One example common in many developing countries is the construction of large hydroelectric dams. But the dangers of borrowing money far outweigh the possible benefits, which are marginal at best. If the government wants to spend money, it should do what everyone else has to do: save money until they can afford to spend it.

 

He's arguing about the fact that the government has to pay interest on their debt...period. It's the greenbacker argument. It's the national socialist argument.

From your response, wasn't sure you got the core gist of his topic.

 

Who is that someone that tells them "no" now?

 

Interesting. What exactly makes you think you have a natural right to the value of your money that the Fed is impinging on?

 

Indebted whores are always the ones who tend to be most wasteful, warmongering, corrupt morons. you dissagree?

 

Wasteful, warmongering, corrupt morons are how we become indebted.

Ok, I offer this. The government can print their own money at zero interest, not privately associated at all. But they cannot prevent private or state organizations from creating their own currencies and banking systems.

How many people or other nations would still accept the government money after a decade or so? They would be wiped out because they are panderers without concern for fiscal responsibility or 'profits.' They would print their money to utter worthlessness, just like they are doing now.

 

Objectively false (except for the corrupt morons part). Under our debt money system, it doesn't matter what the money is spent on, how efficiently it is spent, or even if it is spent at all: when firms and households are reluctant to take on additional debt, government HAS to go into debt to avoid a deflationary collapse like the early 1930s.

We tried that. In every case, the private banksters created so much money and debt that the system collapsed.

All who weren't stupid, greedy fools.

History proves that private banksters' concern for profits always destroys every private monetary system. Every single one.

Objectively false. It is private banksters who create almost all our money, and have done so for a century. Just now, they are creating it in order to lend it to government at interest, so the government can give it back to them to bail them out of all their bad loans. It's nothing but a way of transferring wealth from taxpayers to banksters in return for nothing.

 

Interesting. What bank has the ability to create money to lend to the government? Can you post a note that have a logo of JP Morgan, US Bank, Bank of America...etc ...on it?

I'm eager to know.

 

I completely accept your offer. sounds fair and logical!

 

You mean the crash of the Great Depression caused by the inflation of the roaring '20s? Sort of like the roaring '90s, isn't it? It sort of helps to look at what was going on before the crash, before lauding the efforts made to alleviate a crash.

You might not want to limit your study of history to textbooks written by proponents of a system of government monopoly created for the good of private interests.

 

He is just a troll and he is lying with his straight face everyday. Just look at his own post:

 

But can any of you trolls answer the question in OP:

 

But building hydro-electric dams takes profit from oil companies so most politicians are against it.

 

lol. I told you, it's because governments suckass. Whatever they manage to confiscate from the public should be all they are allowed, and I actually don't even think that should be allowed. Any in excess of what they steal from the public should be borrowed at interest.

There is risk associated with anyone lending them money because they suckass. Interest is the price of the risk and time associated with lending. No legitimate private banker would lend the US government a single penny at this point.

 

They're already doing just that. If the private corps want to lend the money to the government. That's fine. If not, uncle Sam does not give a rat ass because they've been printing and spending. Just as Ben The Printer announced this week, beginning 2013, the Fed will print $45 billions/mo or $540 billions in 2013 to fund US Treasury Dept which will fund the government spending.

 

So snoop and network, I take it you both agree with these two points:
1. It would be better if government aka people's representatives would be allowed to print money without having to pay the interest and
2. alternate money systems should be allowed to compete with government's money, so that there is no monopoly.

A question 2: if you get a ticket for speeding and you have to pay the township, but you don't have any of the money that government accepts, how do you pay them the fine, and how what determines the exchange rate from your gold backed currency to their wheel barel currency? all details need to be clear, or else it's a no show.

 

The government will take anything that is acceptable by the market. As far as I know, my local county accepts anything: MasterCard, Visa, Discover, AmericanExpress, Cash, Money Order....etc....If I don't have the money, they can always deduct the money up to the "fine" amount from my payroll.

 

This all gets too far over peoples' heads for it to go mainstream. That's why the forum commoners are not piling on in this thread. Your questions are legitimate and I've considered the same things. It's an interesting topic. What is money and where does it actually come from and what does it represent?

1. They can try it, but they would lose out because they are politicians. The existence of competition may actually keep them in check for a short while.

2. yes

Speeding ticket....the same way that the Chinese (foolishly) accept US dollars. Exchange rates. There is no magical boundary circling this piece of earth indicating that we all must live and die by the quality of our government and their money.

It's a bad idea, and affects way too many people when they fail. These economists do not agree on anything. This is the core of the idea, let all of these know-it-all and always wrong economists practice their ideas at smaller scales, where it doesn't take down the entire world.

 

All commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system are empowered to create money to lend to government. Notes (FRNs) are only a tiny fraction of the money supply. Almost all money consists of demand deposits created by banks in the course of lending, not the familiar green bills.

 

The Great Depression was not caused by the inflation of the 20s, but by the Fed's policy of contracting the money supply in 1929-32. Without that deflationary monetary contraction, the Great Depression would have been a minor stock market panic, like 1987.

Are you actually claiming that contraction of the money supply in the early 30s was to alleviate the crash???

ROTFL!!!

There are few economic relationships more reliable than the link between money supply growth and real economic growth.

<yawn> I know incomparably more economic history than you.

 

That's not what I asked. Please post one note with a logo of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, US Banks, Bank of America....etc on it. Until then, I simply assume that you either have no clue or you're simply talking out of your ass.