Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble
From: Castlef (joejmd_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: amalric: "Re: post-fascism and Blair's Third Way"
- Previous message: Jim Blair: "Re: post-fascism and Blair's Third Way"
- In reply to: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Next in thread: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Reply: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Nov 2004 12:16:44 -0800
william_b_ryan@hotmail.com (Bill Ryan) wrote in message news:<45bb7944.0411180917.2e8b75c8@posting.google.com>...
> Think about it. In an interest free system you are
> Loaned $100,000 to buy a house. With that money you
> pay the people to build the house and once its
> finished you no longer have the 100,000 but you have
> the house. This house is your asset to the bank for
> the loan and now you work and work and sweat to pay
> back this 100,000. Now ask yourself what risk it is
> to the bank if they have the asset of your house as
> their collateral which is worth the same as the loan?
> -------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> [REPLY] Evidently, *you* haven't thought very much
> about it. If it is a $100,000 house it is a $100,000
> house if you pay for it right now. No-one in his
> right mind is going to sell you a $100,000 house that
> is worth $100,000 right now for $100,000 that you pay
> over thirty years. He might be persuaded to sell you
> the house for $100,000 plus interest in equal monthly
> payments over thirty years. Or, he might rent the
> house to you, in which case he might earn a lot more
> than he would have earned in interest. Or, he might
> refuse to take anything but cash in payment for the
> house.
>
> This is where the banker comes in. He effectively
> endorses your note that is your promise to pay. You
> cannot expect to get substantially better terms than
> if somehow the seller agreed to accept your note for
> $100,000 plus interest paid over thirty years.
What difference does it make to the person who you pay to build your
house whether you pay $100,000 from an interest bearing loan or a
non-interest loan? They do not get a lick of the interest from the
interest loan, the bank does. Your argument bears no semblance to
intelligence whatsoever. Think before you write.
>
> There is and cannot be such a thing as an "interest
> free system." There are real costs to providing
> financial services that have to be paid by someone,
> whether or not they are called "interest."
Although money is intrinsically valueless, it does cost next to
nothing to create and that next to nothing is still something... maybe
a few dollars service fee.
>
> Yes, indeed, a rather stupid dictator could take over
> who would mandate "no more interest." There is such
> a system in North Korea, as there were previously in
> the former Soviet Union and Albania.
>
> Why is it impossible for you to see the connection
> between modern creditary mechanisms like banking and
> increasing wealth shared by all?
>
> The development of the modern mortgage is what made
> widespread home ownership possible. Prospective
> homeowners no longer had to save a lifetime to
> purchase a home. They could purchase a home right
> now and live in it over their lifetime, paying for it
> with income earned over their lifetime.
> ->
Like I said, having the banks create money even with interest is
better than having no money at all.
>
> > Whatever else it may be--it certainly is not
> > consistent with the United States Constitution and
> > its appended Bill of Rights, which contemplate
> > division of powers and checks and balances on
> > concentrations of power, public and private.
>
> Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution,
> which provides that Congress shall have the power "To
> coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of
> foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
> Measures;"
>
> During the Civil War, the United States printed
> "Greenbacks". Not only does the government have the
> power to create money but it has done so before.
> -------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> [REPLY] You pitiable ignoramus. The "power to coin
> money and regulate the value thereof" does not
> amalgamate banking to government. Banking deals with
> promissory notes and negotiable securities. Banking
> deposits are in the category of notes and securities.
> It flows from the freedom we have in a free society
> to privately contract. You yourself have that power
> when you tender your personal note to someone. A
> thousand years ago it would have been the stock to
> the tally stick. The fact that bank deposits have
> largely superseded government coins in ordinary
> transactions does not violate the United States
> Constitution.
>
> The power to "coin" in the context of the times when
> the Constitution was formulated did not mean that
> government has the power to coin money and spend it
> in lieu of taxes. It meant that government had the
> power to coin money for the people who brought gold
> and silver bullion to the mint. The people who
> brought the bullion to the mint would spend the newly
> coined money. This is what the power to coin meant
> to the Populist supporters of "free coinage" in the
> latter half of the nineteenth century, as it did to
> the framers of the Constitution.
>
> The Greenbacks were another matter. They were
> printed and spent during time of war, as were the
> Continentals during the Revolution. There is nothing
> in the Constitution that prohibits government from
> doing so. They were in my opinion justifiable
> wartime expedients.
>
> But forcing Greenbacks on the public while at the
> same time suppressing the power of banks to create
> deposits would be inconsistent with the Constitution.
> It would be pure fascism. There's no way around it.
> ->
The government of the United States is a government of enumerated
powers, and all powers not delegated to it, nor inhibited to the
states, are reserved to the states or to the people thereof. You
yourself acknowledged that the government created money. If this is
not the clause that delegates this power then what is?
>
> If anyone has been reading this then they would know
> that earlier in this thread I stated: "That the
> government should spend whatever money they need into
> circulation, interest free, and tax it back out. In
> this way the money that is clearly spent by the
> government will clearly be taxed from the people as
> it should."
> -------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> [REPLY] So, it would be inflationary when spent, and
> deflationary when taxed "back out." And, since
> banking would be suppressed, there could be no
> private transactions except with the government money
> not yet taxed "back out." Sounds like the situation
> in Albania before the collapse of its communist
> regime.
> ->
If the government spent and lent the money , there would still be
banks where you go to get loans. The bookkeepers would still be there.
The money the government would spend into circulation would have a
date and time to be taxed back out. Or, like you said the money would
loose its power... and depreciate. I have been reading through
Jefferson's writings at the online archive and I found an interesting
quote which pertains to this:
"Previous to the Revolution, most of the States were in the habit,
whenever they had occasion for more money than could be raised
immediately by taxes, to issue paper notes or bills, in the name of
the State, wherein they promised to pay to the bearer the sum named in
the note or bill. In some of the States no time of payment was fixed,
nor tax laid to enable payment. In these, the bills depreciated. But
others of the States named in the bill the day when it should be paid,
laid taxes to bring in money for that purpose, and paid the bills
punctually, on or before the day named. In these States, paper money
was in as high estimation as gold and silver."
TITLE: To M. de Meunier.
EDITION: Washington ed. ix, 248.
EDITION: Ford ed., iv, 153.
PLACE: Paris
DATE: 1786
>
> >
> > How are your recommendations NOT tantamount to pure
> > FASCISM?
> > -
>
> Please stop with the name-calling, and propaganda.
> -------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> [REPLY] I asked you a question. Please answer it.
> -
I am a Capitalist, like Abraham Lincoln.
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a
positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others
may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and
enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of
another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus
by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when
built"
Money is a creature of the law. It is valueless, and is meant as a
means to facilitate exchange, and benefit everyone. You argue that the
banks creating the money with interest benefits the whole community.
And while I agree that having money is better than none at all, your
argument is akin to saying that a slave is benefiting from being
enslaved because his master pays for his boarding and food.
"People who will not turn a shovel of dirt on the project, nor
contribute a pound of material, will collect more money, from the
United States, than will the people, who supply all the material and
do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest (usury) ...
But here is the point: If the nation can issue a dollar bond, it can
also issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes
the bill good, also. The difference, between the bond and the bill, is
that the bond lets the money-broker collect twice the amount of the
bond, and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort,
provided by the Constitution, pays nobody, but those, who contribute
in some useful way. It is absurd, to say that our country can issue
bonds, and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one
fattens the usurer and the other helps the people. If the currency
issued by the people were no good, then the bonds would be no good,
either. It is a terrible situation, when the Government, to insure the
national wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest
charges, at the hands of men, who control the fictitious value of
gold. Interest is the invention of Satan."
-THOMAS A. EDISON
- Next message: amalric: "Re: post-fascism and Blair's Third Way"
- Previous message: Jim Blair: "Re: post-fascism and Blair's Third Way"
- In reply to: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Next in thread: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Reply: Bill Ryan: "Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
