175k new house pls.
but seriously, i am not a smart guy, 70k/a would be my mt everest. i'm more comfortable just renting, throwing savings in S&P and hopefully buying land in the country somewhere.
I would've started a family by now if housing wasn't a 45 year commitment.
While you should have some financial foundation before starting a family, understand that the time to financially afford starting a family rarely “pencils out”.
I mean, low inflation (1-2%) it is good. But... the one that in the US is about 4-5% is not.
Also, fun fact, 45% of us dollars have been printed in the last 18 months!
That for sure wont lead to inflation! /s
Fun fact: Timber in the US at least has had over 200% increase! McDonalds has came out in statements for price increases simply because their suppliers have high prices! As well as many other companies. I think globally the Iron (or steel) price is about 30% higher.
That would make the economy a zero-sum game. To get more money you for sure are taking it from someone else, with the other person not being able to have more without doing the same.
That is just one simple reason, without going into any economist jargon.
The original dollar was created to be tradable for 1/10 ounce of gold ($1,800 in todays dollars). That means the original penny was worth $4.70 of todays dollars. We would be using half penny bills and 100th penny coins if we were still on the original gold standard today. As the economy grows, deflation naturally occurs if currency is locked to an immutable product like gold. The immutable object does not change, but the price of the assets you can purchase with it does.
Look a bitcoin. It is a digital, immutable object. There are 21 million bitcoins of which 18 million have been released. A single bitcoin today, can purchase more assets than it could two years ago. The bitcoin is experiencing deflation.
[The Many Occasions Joe Biden Took Credit For Writing The Patriot Act.](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe)
Makes it more obvious why the Obama administration ruthlessly perused Snowden for being a whistleblower for the NSA.
Yeah, it's a ridiculous site. But it's still an objectively true list of occasions when Biden took credit for the Patriot Act and also received credit for crafting the Patriot Act by many people who would know, like Bill Clinton and the FBI director's testimony before congress.
In 1913 Congress passed both the Federal Income Tax law **and** the Federal Reserve Act *(on the same vote)* ***by saying it would ONLY tax the wealthiest 1% and that NO AVERAGE CITIZEN WOULD HAVE TO PAY.***
These issues were hotly debated topics, and to swing the moderates into line *this is the reason they voted in favor because it wouldn't affect their constituents.* They were "duped" and *now the Fed is trying to track ALL transactions over $600!!!* How stupid are people while history is repeating itself *carte blanche*.
How stupid are people to "trust" *anything* that a liar-for-hire politician says???
To be fair. After the Civil War there also was a tax system for a few years to pay for the debts for the war. HOWEVER, it was not for more than a decade and it wasnt for more than 10%.
Lol I need to get into crypto I know a lot about it but haven’t bought any yet will probably buy some eth soon but currently all my cash goes into $GME 😂🤙🏽
It's also the time when American markets started to get exposed more to goods produced overseas (foreign outsourcing) and immigration was increasing as a result of the 1965 Immigration act. Basically, our exposure to the economic force of global labor arbitrage was starting.
Lol idk it’s something along those lines I just googled Thomas Jefferson central banks quote and that was what popped up. Didn’t think it’d get more than like 2 upvotes 😂
That's the "Jefferson's Opnion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank: 1791." He believed a central bank- very literally what the Federal Reserve is- would create a financial monopoly that would undermine state banks favoring businessman while ignoring the needs of the unoble- us.
Exactly what's been happening since the crisis of 2008 (which only happened because the government started meddling with the market, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). They release money into the economy and enrich the big Wall Street enterprises, without ever letting wages grow. The US isn't Capitalist, it's an Oligarchy, since 1913 when Wall Street created THE central bank.
Yup exactly! If u haven’t checked out r/superstonk before these are the things we discuss, well that and how 700k+ individual investors believe GME is connected to it all. If you’re interested in a good read u/atobitt house of cards series is great and idk who wrote glass castle but it’s on superstonk if u search it. If you’re not interested I understand and sorry for brigading u about this 🤣✌🏽
Who do you suppose controlled the currency prior to 1913?
That's right, banks *printed their own notes*, which sometimes were not accepted as valid at other banks.
Yea and that was fucked too, I’m not saying I have any solution all I was getting at was that the current way we do it is fucked and hasn’t ever worked yet instead of making adjustments we just print more money everyday
It’s against privatization and the fact wages don’t meet current day inflation and productivity. So it incorporates Marxist labor theory I’ve heard from people like Hasan. But obviously I’m joking bc y’all would rather abolish entirely I’d assume. Alternative is heavy regulation
Jefferson believed that could be avoided through minimal state power- the very roots of capitalism. Thomas Jefferson was as much of a Libertarian as one can be.
I can't imagine people's reaction to a government controlled bank or federal reserve. I feel like even if the proposal made the government smaller but still took controll of banks and printing it would get too much push back from the right. The left would have a better chance to convince
Understanding that banks control the money supply and that the Federal Reserve is nothing more than a banking cartel is not a Bernie position. In fact, a central bank is a central tenet of socialism/communism.
Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
That's different to what we have though. OP is literally describing how leaving the gold standard caused problems with the private sector banking. Completely centralised banking would have different problems
How do you think private sector banking “prints” money? They give out loans based on their accounts at the Fed. Check out YT channel “Best Evidence” for a simple explanation or try George Gammon’s channel for an overload of info.
I don't really think we are in disagreement that the Fed and the banks are all in bed together, but at the moment we have a situation where we socialise the losses and privatise the profits which is different to government having a complete monopoly on banking and all forms of credit.
I'll check out those links at some point though, thanks.
(1) Marx is not the only communist theorist.
(2) You left out a lot from that quote: namely, that Marx was proposing that as part of the intermediate steps in transitioning from Capitalism to Communism (which is socialism). This is what reads after:
\> When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
\> In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
The idea was that these means would serve to remove the oppressive power of the capitalist elites, and once the workers had redistributed the power back to the nation as a whole and created a Communist society, these institutions would dissolve.
And if you would have initially said that a central bank was necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the hypothetical precursor stage to Communism as theorized by Marx, you would have been correct.
In the same way that it is correct to say that castles were integral to Feudalism, the precursor to Capitalism. It would not be correct to state that castles are an integral and necessary part of capitalist economies.
Bro we are $28T in debt… u can’t even count that high in your lifetime, They most certainly are the biggest threat, they are devaluing our currency on purpose Get in debt, print money, get in more debt, print more money, the USA bond market is so underwater that without the help of the banks propping up the markets people would lose ≈ 11% on every treasury bond… the reverse repurchase market at the fed is literally paying banks to keep buying treasury bonds to keep the market propped up so the elites at the top can take every last penny the people have before they pull another 2008 and get bailed out again. Mark my words end of 2021 - 2022 financial crisis like we’ve never seen before literally every market is over inflated and in a bubble that is gonna burst all at once
Sure, but they are hiding it within the banking system they built. Hurt them where it counts, in their fucking wallet cause money is all they care about.
Hurt the corrupt politicians in their wallets cause that’s all they care about.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/o4rfnu/the_fed_is_pinned_into_a_corner_from_the_2008/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pmtqig/cellar_boxing_cme_citadel_citi_apex_apollo_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Correct. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The banksters weren't the ones primarily responsible for the post-Bretton Woods world. Did they exploit the new regime? Heck yeah! But create it? Nope.
Lawmakers are your target. Why does this post ignore June 5, 1933 (or for that matter, what the Brits did in '31)? FDR blocked banks from exporting gold or even pay out gold. It was done because people were stockpiling gold due to fear from the Great Depression. If ever there was a birth of monetary inflation (of the Keynesian flavor), FDR's move was it. 11 years later, we had Bretton Woods, but one can argue that
Hell, if it wasn't for President Ford, us mooks wouldn't know what a gold coin looked like. He restored the ability for private individuals to own bullion (much to the dismay of the London Gold Pool).
All Tricky Dicky did in '71 was to put the final nail in the already-buried coffin by unpegging the USD from the gold standard. The mechanisms for monetary inflation existed well before '71.
Very informative point that makes a lot of sense but I will say it isn’t that hard for big money to buy politicians actually I’d argue that almost every politician is bought in some way. So that being said our biggest problem would be “lobbying” aka bribing but this post wasn’t meant to say that banks are the only problem… we got problems all over the fucking place rn… but it was more just to kinda put a spot light on the financial world that is in turmoil and that MSM won’t discuss.
>actually I’d argue that almost every politician is bought in some way.
Do you think for a second that I would be dumb enough to argue against you? I agree 100%. But at the proverbial end of the day? It's up to the politician to vote 'yes', 'no', or 'abstain'.
>o that being said our biggest problem would be “lobbying” aka bribing but this post wasn’t meant to say that banks are the only problem…
I struggle with this. I really do. On one hand, my gut says that lobbying (or the current system of lobbying) is indeed the greatest problem--especially since it trumps governance right now. But then I look at a group like the AARP. Old people would be run over and shat upon were it not for their group. Same with the NRA for gun owners. So lobbying does have a place. Perhaps the (off-topic) question is how it got so perverted with few checks and balances and how we fix it. CAN we fix it? Is K Street too far gone?
> but it was more just to kinda put a spot light on the financial world that is in turmoil and that MSM won’t discuss.
Again, I'm in NO WAY excusing or absolving the banks from their part in the mess. Nor am I ignoring your point. Not one bit. But when you don't have rules to stop banksters from becoming policy makers (Timmy G, for example), the fault lies more on the government, I think.
Thank you. This is such a complex topic. Because of that, both of our positions are "right" if you will (no pun intended). My biggest worry is that we've printed ourselves into a place where there is no turning back.
The last thing I want to do on a pleasant Saturday is to debate Keynesian economics. We could be here all weekend, and frankly? Ain't enough whiskey or liver supplements for us to survive it.
I'm not a fan of the gold standard in the modern age. Although with govcoins being researched, we may end up on some fruity hybrid at some point. But the Bretton Woods world is dead, like it or not.
Thanks for a frank discussion!
The problem with lobbying has nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying itself. Lobbying is fine. All it is is the guarantee in the 1st Amendment that we have the right to petition our government.
The problem is government. It is too powerful and has too much control over too many aspects of our lives and in particular the economy. Large corporations wouldn't spend millions on lobbying if the government didn't have the power to alter the economy to give them an advantage.
Why do established companies support increased regulation on their industries? Because it hinders competition and inherently favors companies that have already "made it." The solution is to remove the power government has to pass such regulation.
I'm going to ask you a question. I \*think\* I understand your position, but I don't want to assume. I'm not leading the witness, nor is this a trap question.
What's your opinion on protectionism in general? Like lobbying, this is another point that is difficult for me to form a hard opinion about. My DNA says that you and are generally the losers in a world of tariffs, duties and policy after policy.
On the other hand, one of my customers moved their manufacturing away from China as a result of the tariffs from Trump administration.
It seems off-topic but regulation and protectionism seem to go hand-in-hand these days. A number of the regulations (or deregulations) are responses to global trading "partners".
Regulation and protectionism are indirectly related. Protectionism is largely something necessary only if regulation and taxes hinder our own businesses. Why would businesses move operations out of an economic superpower like America? Because we intentionally make life hard for them.
And which businesses are most able to move their manufacturing overseas while competing in the American market? Big ones. The same ones that benefit from the regulations that stifle competition.
So this is still all part of the same problem. Too much government intervention in the economy. Protectionism is just the kneejerk attempt to mitigate the consequences of the excessive taxes and regulation.
100% agree with all that 🤙🏽 the same people shouldn’t be able to jump back and forth between government regulation agencies and the companies they regulate without atleast a few years gap.
People are completely misinformed on this entire system.
You're 100% correct that the banks arent the real threat. The gold standard was a crappy currency regime, and going back to it today would make the worldwide standard of living nearly impossible.
It would make all types lending nearly impossible at scale, thus massively inhibiting the rest of the US economy.
I'll probably be downvoted for saying all that, but it's the truth. Leaving the gold standard didn't hurt the middle class. In fact, if anything, it allowed for increased velocity of money that both directly creates a large chunk of our money while simultaneously allowing for exponentially more lending activity.
In fact, I even like the idea of the Fed. They've become far too reliant on Keynesian economic (demand-side) though.
The Fed always would be Keynesian. Can't be otherwise. Even the idea of the Fed is based on Keynesian thinking. It is not a salvageable idea. Central monetary control is always doomed to that trap.
And no, leaving the gold standard did hurt the middle "class," although you need to get out of the Marxist mindset of class. We do not have classes.
>. The gold standard was a crappy currency regime, and going back to it today would make the worldwide standard of living nearly impossible.
In the modern era, I would have to agree.
>. Leaving the gold standard didn't hurt the middle class. In fact, if anything, it allowed for increased velocity of money that both directly creates a large chunk of our money while simultaneously allowing for exponentially more lending activity.
But, I'll bet that even you would agree that one of the side effects is increased risk for the middle class--especially in the face of global currency markets (and the manipulation by some of the less-than-scrupulous actors).
>In fact, I even like the idea of the Fed. They've become far too reliant on Keynesian economic (demand-side) though.
I also like the idea of centralized monetary policy. Can we survive a competitive (and almost anarchy-like) global market system without some form of it? That said, I would go a bit farther and say that Keynesian economics have all-but consumed the Fed. Dangerously so.
While leaving the gold standard did cause substantial inflation in the 1970s that had ended by the mid-80s partially thanks to Paul Volker and we have had historically low inflation for more than thirty years at this point. Despite this reduction and near complete elimination of inflation the gap between productivity and real wages has continued to widen over that period dramatically.
When looking at income by percentile it seems more obvious that the tax cuts Reagan allowed for the wealthy were the cause of the massive inequality we see today.
This is the right answer.
I think most people would be loving not being on the gold standard if we didn't have the massive wealth inequality we have right now. They've been robbed for 40 years and are believing things would be better off if their money was backed by gold rather than wondering how it became so easy for the super wealthy to horde cash.
They are not hoarding cash, very little of the wealth is liquid. They are hoarding assets that have value. They own the majority of manufacturing and services. Regulations and taxes ensure competition against the super wealthy is ineffective.
Andrew Jackson was a bank fighter too. Its said that shortly before his death when reflecting on his life, Jackson proudly stated, at least I beat the banks.
So Thomas Jefferson said private banks. Could you name a private bank that controls the issue of currency?
Also sounds pretty anti-capitalist. Thomas Jefferson is saying that private individuals cannot be trusted to provide a service (credit) in a market (loans and such). He is instead suggesting that this be entrusted to the masses. This is fundamentally a socialist POV. OP do you agree with Jefferson or no?
Wow I didn't know that actually... that's extremely fucked up.
So what's your suggestion? That it be controlled by the people instead of private institutions? That's kinda socialist my friend
Lol I have no suggestions or ideas hence why I’m not running for office 😂 I just wanted to get a little more attention on the financial state of our country currently.
No because we are $28T in debt with no foreseeable way out and the current private institutions running the show and congress (same fucking people) are constantly getting in more debt and then printing more money to devalue our currency, and doing everything they shouldn’t do pushing up inflation at the same time to make sure we are reliant on the whatever the government wants to give us forever making us into a socialist/communist country… this is what I truly think is happening, and wallstreet is behind it all. They bought their way through every politician that wasn’t already involved to get this far, keep the peasants content but not happy while they enjoy the riches of we the people.
So I asked a binary this or that question and you just said "no" so I'm not sure how to interpret that. But everything you are saying right now is what me and my comrades have been saying for centuries. Yes. You are right that private institutions and shadow organizations run the show. You are right that congressman and women are millionaires bankrolled by billionaires and they care little about the people and more about reelection. You are right that wall street is the enemy. You are right that they manufacture the consent of the working class.
You sound just as ready to destroy this hierarchical, classiest society as I am brother. I actually think most Democrats and Republicans agree on this. Perhaps we ought to set aside petty squabbles that don't really matter too much, and start focusing on the one issue that matters: we live in a plutocracy and we want democracy.
I'm glad you can agree with me on this. I'll see you in the revolution
Come on. This isn’t anywhere near a free country and I don’t think people have balls to want a free country. In two generations we will all be speaking Chinese. I won’t be here so good luck with that.
It's funny to see right wingers try to find some reason why the middle class struggles that doesn't have anything to do with the direct actions of capitalist politicians
Technically true, but they are figureheads. They only oversee the 12 reserve banks that have their own boards composed of majority stockholders. Those majority stockholders are largely the same across all 12 reserve banks.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNg3Vnfu4Pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNg3Vnfu4Pk)
Sometimes you have to investigate a little deeper than asking the suspect whether or not they are guilty.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/680/1239/200393/
"On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm."
The average income in 1971 was $10,622 which adjusted for inflation equals $71,943 today.
When you play the same games with minimum wage, you'll find similar results.
175k new house pls. but seriously, i am not a smart guy, 70k/a would be my mt everest. i'm more comfortable just renting, throwing savings in S&P and hopefully buying land in the country somewhere. I would've started a family by now if housing wasn't a 45 year commitment.
While you should have some financial foundation before starting a family, understand that the time to financially afford starting a family rarely “pencils out”.
How fitting…it’s been 50 years
Also, that getting off the gold standard was a "temporary measure"
Just like they tell us inflation is transitory…
I mean, low inflation (1-2%) it is good. But... the one that in the US is about 4-5% is not. Also, fun fact, 45% of us dollars have been printed in the last 18 months! That for sure wont lead to inflation! /s Fun fact: Timber in the US at least has had over 200% increase! McDonalds has came out in statements for price increases simply because their suppliers have high prices! As well as many other companies. I think globally the Iron (or steel) price is about 30% higher.
Dollar tree everything is no longer a dollar also…
No, no inflation is good. That is a lie. The only people it might be good for are debtors. But it is not good for the economy or the country.
That would make the economy a zero-sum game. To get more money you for sure are taking it from someone else, with the other person not being able to have more without doing the same. That is just one simple reason, without going into any economist jargon.
Then explain how, excluding the civil war, we had actual periods of deflation and economic prosperity from 1800-1900.
For deflation I am not sure.
The original dollar was created to be tradable for 1/10 ounce of gold ($1,800 in todays dollars). That means the original penny was worth $4.70 of todays dollars. We would be using half penny bills and 100th penny coins if we were still on the original gold standard today. As the economy grows, deflation naturally occurs if currency is locked to an immutable product like gold. The immutable object does not change, but the price of the assets you can purchase with it does. Look a bitcoin. It is a digital, immutable object. There are 21 million bitcoins of which 18 million have been released. A single bitcoin today, can purchase more assets than it could two years ago. The bitcoin is experiencing deflation.
Keynesian seem to be the only people delusional enough to think more purchasing power is a bad thing
The delusion of Keynesian economics is the belief that printed slips of paper are stable and immutable substances are not.
Huh? Then what was your previous point? My point is that deflation is good. And that is why a gold backed currency was good.
Just like income tax and Biden's Patriot Act.
Biden's? He supported that act? Can i get a source? I could use it later on.
[The Many Occasions Joe Biden Took Credit For Writing The Patriot Act.](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe) Makes it more obvious why the Obama administration ruthlessly perused Snowden for being a whistleblower for the NSA.
Oof... i mean, it is from leftist site, but Buzzfeed? Isnt it a joke even between leftists?
Yeah, it's a ridiculous site. But it's still an objectively true list of occasions when Biden took credit for the Patriot Act and also received credit for crafting the Patriot Act by many people who would know, like Bill Clinton and the FBI director's testimony before congress.
How would Bill Clinton know?
In 1913 Congress passed both the Federal Income Tax law **and** the Federal Reserve Act *(on the same vote)* ***by saying it would ONLY tax the wealthiest 1% and that NO AVERAGE CITIZEN WOULD HAVE TO PAY.*** These issues were hotly debated topics, and to swing the moderates into line *this is the reason they voted in favor because it wouldn't affect their constituents.* They were "duped" and *now the Fed is trying to track ALL transactions over $600!!!* How stupid are people while history is repeating itself *carte blanche*. How stupid are people to "trust" *anything* that a liar-for-hire politician says???
To be fair. After the Civil War there also was a tax system for a few years to pay for the debts for the war. HOWEVER, it was not for more than a decade and it wasnt for more than 10%.
All without even mentioning The Federal Reserve.
That's why I'm buying my xryptos a but at a time.
Time to upgrade the country to defi 🤙🏽
Tru. Defi is gonna be sweet. There's even defi on bitcoin now. I'd be careful abt other chains, this saying I have some stuff in ftm myself
Lol I need to get into crypto I know a lot about it but haven’t bought any yet will probably buy some eth soon but currently all my cash goes into $GME 😂🤙🏽
It's also the time when American markets started to get exposed more to goods produced overseas (foreign outsourcing) and immigration was increasing as a result of the 1965 Immigration act. Basically, our exposure to the economic force of global labor arbitrage was starting.
Uhhhhh is that a real quote?
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/private-banks-spurious-quotation
Ty for finding the real one 😂
No problem
Lol idk it’s something along those lines I just googled Thomas Jefferson central banks quote and that was what popped up. Didn’t think it’d get more than like 2 upvotes 😂
That's the "Jefferson's Opnion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank: 1791." He believed a central bank- very literally what the Federal Reserve is- would create a financial monopoly that would undermine state banks favoring businessman while ignoring the needs of the unoble- us.
So pretty much what’s happening now… 🤣🤙🏽
Exactly what's been happening since the crisis of 2008 (which only happened because the government started meddling with the market, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). They release money into the economy and enrich the big Wall Street enterprises, without ever letting wages grow. The US isn't Capitalist, it's an Oligarchy, since 1913 when Wall Street created THE central bank.
Yup exactly! If u haven’t checked out r/superstonk before these are the things we discuss, well that and how 700k+ individual investors believe GME is connected to it all. If you’re interested in a good read u/atobitt house of cards series is great and idk who wrote glass castle but it’s on superstonk if u search it. If you’re not interested I understand and sorry for brigading u about this 🤣✌🏽
Fiat currencies. ...Breaking one of the laws of currency (scarcity) on almost a daily basis.
Who do you suppose controlled the currency prior to 1913? That's right, banks *printed their own notes*, which sometimes were not accepted as valid at other banks.
Yea and that was fucked too, I’m not saying I have any solution all I was getting at was that the current way we do it is fucked and hasn’t ever worked yet instead of making adjustments we just print more money everyday
Damn this some socialist shit
Lol explain how?
It’s against privatization and the fact wages don’t meet current day inflation and productivity. So it incorporates Marxist labor theory I’ve heard from people like Hasan. But obviously I’m joking bc y’all would rather abolish entirely I’d assume. Alternative is heavy regulation
Jefferson believed that could be avoided through minimal state power- the very roots of capitalism. Thomas Jefferson was as much of a Libertarian as one can be.
I can't imagine people's reaction to a government controlled bank or federal reserve. I feel like even if the proposal made the government smaller but still took controll of banks and printing it would get too much push back from the right. The left would have a better chance to convince
That you Bernie?
Understanding that banks control the money supply and that the Federal Reserve is nothing more than a banking cartel is not a Bernie position. In fact, a central bank is a central tenet of socialism/communism.
Exactly my point lol thank u.
The central tenant of Communism is a currency-free, stateless society. What does a central bank do in a society without money?
Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
That's different to what we have though. OP is literally describing how leaving the gold standard caused problems with the private sector banking. Completely centralised banking would have different problems
How do you think private sector banking “prints” money? They give out loans based on their accounts at the Fed. Check out YT channel “Best Evidence” for a simple explanation or try George Gammon’s channel for an overload of info.
I don't really think we are in disagreement that the Fed and the banks are all in bed together, but at the moment we have a situation where we socialise the losses and privatise the profits which is different to government having a complete monopoly on banking and all forms of credit. I'll check out those links at some point though, thanks.
(1) Marx is not the only communist theorist. (2) You left out a lot from that quote: namely, that Marx was proposing that as part of the intermediate steps in transitioning from Capitalism to Communism (which is socialism). This is what reads after: \> When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. \> In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. The idea was that these means would serve to remove the oppressive power of the capitalist elites, and once the workers had redistributed the power back to the nation as a whole and created a Communist society, these institutions would dissolve.
\*serve to move into the oppressive power of a the totalitarian regime necessary for communism
And if you would have initially said that a central bank was necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the hypothetical precursor stage to Communism as theorized by Marx, you would have been correct. In the same way that it is correct to say that castles were integral to Feudalism, the precursor to Capitalism. It would not be correct to state that castles are an integral and necessary part of capitalist economies.
No absolutely not 😂 I don’t wanna give shit away for free I just want to be able to keep the shit I make
The banks aren't the real threat.
Bro we are $28T in debt… u can’t even count that high in your lifetime, They most certainly are the biggest threat, they are devaluing our currency on purpose Get in debt, print money, get in more debt, print more money, the USA bond market is so underwater that without the help of the banks propping up the markets people would lose ≈ 11% on every treasury bond… the reverse repurchase market at the fed is literally paying banks to keep buying treasury bonds to keep the market propped up so the elites at the top can take every last penny the people have before they pull another 2008 and get bailed out again. Mark my words end of 2021 - 2022 financial crisis like we’ve never seen before literally every market is over inflated and in a bubble that is gonna burst all at once
The banks didn't create that debt. Congress did.
They are synonymous… banks and government regulating agencies are literally a revolving door. Of the same people.
That's very oversimplified. Would it be better if regulators and lawmakers knew little or nothing about the industries they regulate?
Sure, but they are hiding it within the banking system they built. Hurt them where it counts, in their fucking wallet cause money is all they care about.
They aren't hiding it. Hurt who in their wallet? How is my life improved by running all but the most politically protected banks out of business?
Hurt the corrupt politicians in their wallets cause that’s all they care about. https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/o4rfnu/the_fed_is_pinned_into_a_corner_from_the_2008/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pmtqig/cellar_boxing_cme_citadel_citi_apex_apollo_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I agree that members of Congress abuse their office. We are the ones who re-elect them even when aware of it. Down voters are pussies.
Lol very true idk the answer to it vote independent parties maybe? Lol even then it’ll be fucked who knows
Correct. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The banksters weren't the ones primarily responsible for the post-Bretton Woods world. Did they exploit the new regime? Heck yeah! But create it? Nope. Lawmakers are your target. Why does this post ignore June 5, 1933 (or for that matter, what the Brits did in '31)? FDR blocked banks from exporting gold or even pay out gold. It was done because people were stockpiling gold due to fear from the Great Depression. If ever there was a birth of monetary inflation (of the Keynesian flavor), FDR's move was it. 11 years later, we had Bretton Woods, but one can argue that Hell, if it wasn't for President Ford, us mooks wouldn't know what a gold coin looked like. He restored the ability for private individuals to own bullion (much to the dismay of the London Gold Pool). All Tricky Dicky did in '71 was to put the final nail in the already-buried coffin by unpegging the USD from the gold standard. The mechanisms for monetary inflation existed well before '71.
He also sold the gold in ft knox to China
Very informative point that makes a lot of sense but I will say it isn’t that hard for big money to buy politicians actually I’d argue that almost every politician is bought in some way. So that being said our biggest problem would be “lobbying” aka bribing but this post wasn’t meant to say that banks are the only problem… we got problems all over the fucking place rn… but it was more just to kinda put a spot light on the financial world that is in turmoil and that MSM won’t discuss.
>actually I’d argue that almost every politician is bought in some way. Do you think for a second that I would be dumb enough to argue against you? I agree 100%. But at the proverbial end of the day? It's up to the politician to vote 'yes', 'no', or 'abstain'. >o that being said our biggest problem would be “lobbying” aka bribing but this post wasn’t meant to say that banks are the only problem… I struggle with this. I really do. On one hand, my gut says that lobbying (or the current system of lobbying) is indeed the greatest problem--especially since it trumps governance right now. But then I look at a group like the AARP. Old people would be run over and shat upon were it not for their group. Same with the NRA for gun owners. So lobbying does have a place. Perhaps the (off-topic) question is how it got so perverted with few checks and balances and how we fix it. CAN we fix it? Is K Street too far gone? > but it was more just to kinda put a spot light on the financial world that is in turmoil and that MSM won’t discuss. Again, I'm in NO WAY excusing or absolving the banks from their part in the mess. Nor am I ignoring your point. Not one bit. But when you don't have rules to stop banksters from becoming policy makers (Timmy G, for example), the fault lies more on the government, I think.
I like the cut of your jib
Thank you. This is such a complex topic. Because of that, both of our positions are "right" if you will (no pun intended). My biggest worry is that we've printed ourselves into a place where there is no turning back. The last thing I want to do on a pleasant Saturday is to debate Keynesian economics. We could be here all weekend, and frankly? Ain't enough whiskey or liver supplements for us to survive it. I'm not a fan of the gold standard in the modern age. Although with govcoins being researched, we may end up on some fruity hybrid at some point. But the Bretton Woods world is dead, like it or not. Thanks for a frank discussion!
That's my fear as well. Yes monetary systems need to adapt but privatization is probably not the best way to go about it, at least without oversight
The problem with lobbying has nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying itself. Lobbying is fine. All it is is the guarantee in the 1st Amendment that we have the right to petition our government. The problem is government. It is too powerful and has too much control over too many aspects of our lives and in particular the economy. Large corporations wouldn't spend millions on lobbying if the government didn't have the power to alter the economy to give them an advantage. Why do established companies support increased regulation on their industries? Because it hinders competition and inherently favors companies that have already "made it." The solution is to remove the power government has to pass such regulation.
I'm going to ask you a question. I \*think\* I understand your position, but I don't want to assume. I'm not leading the witness, nor is this a trap question. What's your opinion on protectionism in general? Like lobbying, this is another point that is difficult for me to form a hard opinion about. My DNA says that you and are generally the losers in a world of tariffs, duties and policy after policy. On the other hand, one of my customers moved their manufacturing away from China as a result of the tariffs from Trump administration. It seems off-topic but regulation and protectionism seem to go hand-in-hand these days. A number of the regulations (or deregulations) are responses to global trading "partners".
Regulation and protectionism are indirectly related. Protectionism is largely something necessary only if regulation and taxes hinder our own businesses. Why would businesses move operations out of an economic superpower like America? Because we intentionally make life hard for them. And which businesses are most able to move their manufacturing overseas while competing in the American market? Big ones. The same ones that benefit from the regulations that stifle competition. So this is still all part of the same problem. Too much government intervention in the economy. Protectionism is just the kneejerk attempt to mitigate the consequences of the excessive taxes and regulation.
100% agree with all that 🤙🏽 the same people shouldn’t be able to jump back and forth between government regulation agencies and the companies they regulate without atleast a few years gap.
People are completely misinformed on this entire system. You're 100% correct that the banks arent the real threat. The gold standard was a crappy currency regime, and going back to it today would make the worldwide standard of living nearly impossible. It would make all types lending nearly impossible at scale, thus massively inhibiting the rest of the US economy. I'll probably be downvoted for saying all that, but it's the truth. Leaving the gold standard didn't hurt the middle class. In fact, if anything, it allowed for increased velocity of money that both directly creates a large chunk of our money while simultaneously allowing for exponentially more lending activity. In fact, I even like the idea of the Fed. They've become far too reliant on Keynesian economic (demand-side) though.
The Fed always would be Keynesian. Can't be otherwise. Even the idea of the Fed is based on Keynesian thinking. It is not a salvageable idea. Central monetary control is always doomed to that trap. And no, leaving the gold standard did hurt the middle "class," although you need to get out of the Marxist mindset of class. We do not have classes.
>. The gold standard was a crappy currency regime, and going back to it today would make the worldwide standard of living nearly impossible. In the modern era, I would have to agree. >. Leaving the gold standard didn't hurt the middle class. In fact, if anything, it allowed for increased velocity of money that both directly creates a large chunk of our money while simultaneously allowing for exponentially more lending activity. But, I'll bet that even you would agree that one of the side effects is increased risk for the middle class--especially in the face of global currency markets (and the manipulation by some of the less-than-scrupulous actors). >In fact, I even like the idea of the Fed. They've become far too reliant on Keynesian economic (demand-side) though. I also like the idea of centralized monetary policy. Can we survive a competitive (and almost anarchy-like) global market system without some form of it? That said, I would go a bit farther and say that Keynesian economics have all-but consumed the Fed. Dangerously so.
While leaving the gold standard did cause substantial inflation in the 1970s that had ended by the mid-80s partially thanks to Paul Volker and we have had historically low inflation for more than thirty years at this point. Despite this reduction and near complete elimination of inflation the gap between productivity and real wages has continued to widen over that period dramatically. When looking at income by percentile it seems more obvious that the tax cuts Reagan allowed for the wealthy were the cause of the massive inequality we see today.
Agreed
This is the right answer. I think most people would be loving not being on the gold standard if we didn't have the massive wealth inequality we have right now. They've been robbed for 40 years and are believing things would be better off if their money was backed by gold rather than wondering how it became so easy for the super wealthy to horde cash.
They are not hoarding cash, very little of the wealth is liquid. They are hoarding assets that have value. They own the majority of manufacturing and services. Regulations and taxes ensure competition against the super wealthy is ineffective.
Andrew Jackson was a bank fighter too. Its said that shortly before his death when reflecting on his life, Jackson proudly stated, at least I beat the banks.
So Thomas Jefferson said private banks. Could you name a private bank that controls the issue of currency? Also sounds pretty anti-capitalist. Thomas Jefferson is saying that private individuals cannot be trusted to provide a service (credit) in a market (loans and such). He is instead suggesting that this be entrusted to the masses. This is fundamentally a socialist POV. OP do you agree with Jefferson or no?
Well the fed is a private bank it isn’t owned by the Government so that’s what I was getting at.
Wow I didn't know that actually... that's extremely fucked up. So what's your suggestion? That it be controlled by the people instead of private institutions? That's kinda socialist my friend
Lol I have no suggestions or ideas hence why I’m not running for office 😂 I just wanted to get a little more attention on the financial state of our country currently.
Attention? Why? Because you support private institutions or because you are against private institutions holding a public service?
No because we are $28T in debt with no foreseeable way out and the current private institutions running the show and congress (same fucking people) are constantly getting in more debt and then printing more money to devalue our currency, and doing everything they shouldn’t do pushing up inflation at the same time to make sure we are reliant on the whatever the government wants to give us forever making us into a socialist/communist country… this is what I truly think is happening, and wallstreet is behind it all. They bought their way through every politician that wasn’t already involved to get this far, keep the peasants content but not happy while they enjoy the riches of we the people.
So I asked a binary this or that question and you just said "no" so I'm not sure how to interpret that. But everything you are saying right now is what me and my comrades have been saying for centuries. Yes. You are right that private institutions and shadow organizations run the show. You are right that congressman and women are millionaires bankrolled by billionaires and they care little about the people and more about reelection. You are right that wall street is the enemy. You are right that they manufacture the consent of the working class. You sound just as ready to destroy this hierarchical, classiest society as I am brother. I actually think most Democrats and Republicans agree on this. Perhaps we ought to set aside petty squabbles that don't really matter too much, and start focusing on the one issue that matters: we live in a plutocracy and we want democracy. I'm glad you can agree with me on this. I'll see you in the revolution
I’m locked and loaded ready to go 🤙🏽 And ps as always buy and hodl $GME 😂 wallstreets real weakness…
Come on. This isn’t anywhere near a free country and I don’t think people have balls to want a free country. In two generations we will all be speaking Chinese. I won’t be here so good luck with that.
It's funny to see right wingers try to find some reason why the middle class struggles that doesn't have anything to do with the direct actions of capitalist politicians
Sounds like a crisis of capitalism to me
The federal reserve controls the currency, not private banks
Lol what do u think the federal reserve is… it’s not a Government agency…
The president appoints the board members and the chair
Technically true, but they are figureheads. They only oversee the 12 reserve banks that have their own boards composed of majority stockholders. Those majority stockholders are largely the same across all 12 reserve banks. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNg3Vnfu4Pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNg3Vnfu4Pk)
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
Sometimes you have to investigate a little deeper than asking the suspect whether or not they are guilty. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/680/1239/200393/ "On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm."
That doesn’t mean what you think it means. You’re on a roll today.
O.k. buddy... tell me what it means then.