-56 votes

Tax the Rich, End the Fed

Can anyone explain to me why they think a few people HOLDING MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS of dollars in their Personal bank accounts will create jobs and stimulate the economy?

People having a savings is great but when such a small amount of people are holding most of the US's wealth that is not helping the economy. They have more money then they know what to do with and having MILLION/BILLIONS/TRILLIONS sitting in a bank account is not going to create jobs and they won't use it to make risky investments which is something we need in today's world.

No amount of Tax incentives will inspire them to spend enough. Even with a 50% tax they still don't spend enough. Why do we have to have a total collapse, when the few people with the means could give more and avoid a crash completely.

Government sponsored enterprises are still owned by the Private sector.

End the Fed, Tax the Rich




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The problem with our economy is underinvestment?

And if this is the case, are these people who refuse to invest their own money behaving irrationally? And whether they are or aren't, what is your moral justification for using government force to plunder those people?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Yes

Call it what you want, whats the other option? Sitting back and watching the US sink, all because the people with the means don't want to take Ricky investment that could turn our economy around.

For last 100 years the government and the wealthy have nurtured the oil industry into the most lucrative business in the world. I'm not an Obama fan but he spends some money on alternative energies like solar power and the Sharks of the oil cash tank slander alternative energy like someone is killing babies to create solar cells.

Wake up! Your still fighting for the very people your fighting against.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Slow down, soldier

Just because you thought about my question and can't come up with an appropriate answer in ten seconds or less doesnt mean that the solution must be, by default, investment.

Blaming the woes of the world on a single aggregate such as "underinvestment" is the refuge of simple Keynsians. Was there underinvestment in housing in 2006? Was there underinvestment in dot-coms in 1999? Is there underinvestment in defense and entitlement spending? You say yes. I (and reality) say no.

Please don't tell me to wake up. When you're still cuddled up in bed in the morning, I've already listened to a lecture on subjective marginal value theory. When you're eating your mac and cheese for lunch, I'm reading an article on protectionism. When you are playing call of duty and watching big bang theory at night, I'm reading books on the history of banking. I spend at least 4-8 hours every single day studying this stuff. I don't know everything, but I suggest you do a little more soul searching before you start throwing around inane theories of taxation and energy policy.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Nothing is cut a dry

The housing situation is convoluted and is a conversation all on its own. And its different then other kinds of investment/jobs creation.

I don't know enough about the .com bubble to even try to talk about it.

As far as Military I don't agree that is didn't create jobs, as much as I don't agree with how much was spent, it did create a lot of jobs. And always has. And truthfully it proves my point of how when investment/money A LOT OF MONEY is pushed into something, that something will succeed.

We'd have the BEST of Medicine, Technology, infrastructure, alternative energy, if the government would have spent as much money on those things as they did our Military.

So not sure where your "(reality)" is but its not in reality.

And if you really think I spend my time doing all those things, please take a look at this forum post. I spend most of my time looking up things people talk about here and then responding. I read almost all day, nothing in particular because you don't have to read about a single subject to learn how things work.

And you did get me on the Big Bang Theory. =) But if you don't relax your mind with other things, you lose objectivity. I can't remember what its called but I believe there is even a term for it.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Ok

"the housing bubble is convoluted..."

Only if your political philosophy is the knee-jerk product of watching a handful of YouTube videos. Otherwise, the housing bubble is not very convoluted or difficult to understand.

"I don't know enough about the .com bubble..."

But yes, by all means, keep shouting things at people who actually do know about the .com bubble.

"As far as Military I don't agree that is didn't create jobs, as much as I don't agree with how much was spent, it did create a lot of jobs. And always has. And truthfully it proves my point of how when investment/money A LOT OF MONEY is pushed into something, that something will succeed."

When the government steals money from the taxpayer at gunpoint and then gives it to someone else, that is not job creation. You are neither creating, nor growing, a single thing. I forget who said it, but to say that government spending grows the economy is like saying you can steal water from the deep end of the pool and pour it in the shallow end and make it deeper.

The amount of money spent on public schooling has grown exponentially over the last 40 years, and yet we are failing compared to dozens of other countries who spend FAR less on education. So much for your hypothesis that if the government throws enough money at something, it will succeed. You are still believing in the fallacy that Bastiat debunked 160 years go: that which is seen, and that which is not seen. You look at the big boats and tanks and government employees, but what you do not see are all the things people could have purchased if their money wasn't stolen via taxes.

The very fact that you tried to answer my initial rhetorical question about underinvestment in various sectors shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I said "you can't just blame one big aggregate such as underinvestment" and then I listed a handful of sectors in which over investment clearly occurred. The fact that you went piece by piece and agreed or disagreed just bolstered my point that you can't describe the economy with a meaningless blanket term like underinvestment.

The issue isn't me 'relaxing my mind with other things'. The issue is you making proclamations about things you don't have the slightest clue of. You have no idea how FRB works, or even the most fundamental differences between the Keynsians and the Austrians. You think you're arguing with me on points where you actually agree with me. If you want some (unsolicited) advice, pick ONE thing, and study that. Don't think you have all the answers and come on ere and start throwing a nonsensical word salad at me. Study FRB and FRB only, then when you understand that, move on, for example.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Denying the truth does not

Denying the truth does not change it from being true.

You disagreeing with me just to disagree because it does not fit into your philosophy.

I presented to you a valid argument, and you wont except it. Most of you here have lost your objectivity cause your single minded ambition.

But it was fun for a bit, I had a few people message me and even write here how they agree.

I believe that a light bulb will go off when people think about what I have said here. At least the ones who are not so far gone.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

What you presented to me was neither "valid" nor an "argument"

You closed your eyes, slammed your fist on your keyboard a couple times, and clicked 'save'. You did not respond coherently to a single point I made.

What truth am I denying?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

As I said, just cause you

As I said, just cause you can't see it doesn't mean others don't. I have got validation here from others and that's just from the people of this site.

My ideas are more widely excepted, more so then pure Libertarian ideals.

But I would never learn anything new if I just listened to people I agree with. I like to challenge my beliefs and what better place to do it then here.

So thanks. ;)

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

You're downvoting me for

You're downvoting me for saying you should learn about economics? And that without any comment to all my other posts in which I tried to teach you a bit about it?

Do you think you are all-knowing or are you in fact just a crybaby?

This is childish behaviour and proves even more that you are totally indoctrinated by liberal brainwash.
If you were open minded and thought about what others here are telling you, nobody would mind. But you are just crying your hogwash out and don't want to listen to others or learn anything at all.

Variables

I've tried to respond to all post, but your last one was pointless. Saying I don't know anything about economics because I don't agree with your point of view is silly.

You did not teach me anything I didn't already know. I'm not all knowing, I just comprehend things better then most people. To me the story of the Federal reserve, taxes, fiat influx, economic theory is all just a puzzle.

Most here are focused on one thing, the government is the issue and nothing else is. I look at all variables, Government, The Wealthy, the poor, reasoning, cause and effect etc etc. All pieces to my puzzle and I'm still missing pieces but as I said to some one else its like algebra. With enough variables you can find out the answer to almost any question.

I remember when I use to learn stuff from people here. Was nice learning about Mises, individualism, property rights etc. But once I realized that you only subscribe to one basic philosophy, I checked out. Its the same with liberals, they subscribe to one train of thought and can never truly accept thoughts that differ from their beliefs.

Its funny being called a liberal. I get a laugh out of it cause many of the people here get called liberals because they don't support Romney. So being called a liberal here is comical.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Well, but you really don't

Well, but you really don't know anything about economics, because you give no argument against mine.

You can't discuss with me by just crying your hogwash out. In another post, I exactly pointed out where you are wrong in your reasoning. Repeating your stuff over and over again doesn't make it right. You are the one who says I am wrong because I don't agree with your point of view, not me!

I think your problem is, you believe everything is just an opinion, like the public schools probably taught you. But this is bullshit. There are right and wrong in the world.
An opinion always has to be transferable in a sentence with "I like" or "I don't like". Otherwise, it is no opinion, but a conclusion instead. And this conclusion can be based on facts which makes it either right or wrong.

And no, economics is not like algebra. You can't think about it that way and this causes your wrong reasoning. There are dynamics in economics while you think about it statically.

Your stil here

I give no argument against yours... hmmmm ok... No point in responding if you think all I'm writing is not an argument.

If I wasn't you would have never replied in the first place.

And i love how you make assumptions about what I learned and that if i even went to a public school. Everything is an opinion, and just cause someone doesn't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean they are wrong.

You must have flunked algebra or maybe skipped it altogether cause you probably were home schooled. Algebra is everything. EVERYTHING can be made into an algebraic equation, if you think otherwise, you don't know what Algebra is.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

The problem is that I refute

The problem is that I refute your argument and you just repeat it then instead of proving me wrong. Maybe that is because I'm right, but I think that would be too much to admit for you.

And again, it is not everything an opinion. Or what do you say if I claim that the sky is green or 1 + 1 = 3?

And if you know this so well, Mr. Algebra, please try to put how the human body works into an algebraic equation. You should go to the medical schools with your theory and ask them why they don't use algebra to understand the human body. You could revolutionize medicine!

Another one who doesn't

Another one who doesn't understand computer programming. EVERYTHING can be made into a computer program. Research Blue brain project.

You can design a program that knows everything a Doctor knows and more. A program can take the knowledge of every doctor in any field and make it a graphical interface.

I prove you wrong all the time. Whether you accept it is a different story.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Just learn about economics

Just learn about economics and you will begin to understand that your reasoning makes no sense at all.

Go to www.mises.org and start reading.

Savings

Investment comes from Savings. Either those people invest it themselves, or they put it in the bank (and it is lent out for someone else to invest). They don't put it under their mattress. When you understand that, then you understand that taking their money does tons of harm because the efficiency of the government of putting that money to work is horrible in comparison. Putting money in the Bank is very good for our economy; it is just one step away from those people investing it themselves.

Ending the Fed would be great as long as it doesn't happen overnight and it is replaced with a sound money policy/currency system.

You should probably read this book so you can understand basic economics:

http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-grows.pdf

It is written in cartoon form, so you'll be able to understand it no matter what your background is. It also addresses the morality of the capitalist system, which seems to be a theme you are also hitting on. Enjoy.

You need to read more

Its called Fractional Reserve Banking. Thats how money is really invested, so whether you put money in the bank or not, the banking system will always lend out more money then it has to who they see fit...

And there are plenty of successful businesses that got government grants and loans. So just saying that the government makes horrible investment decisions does Not make it true. They are all humans, whether it be Wall Street making investment or the government. Plenty of blame to go around.

So maybe you should do some more reading about the banking system

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Fractional Reserve

Fractional Reserve Banking

AKA legalized fraud.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

What is this "fractional reserve" you speak of?

"so whether you put money in the bank or not, the banking system will always lend out more money then it has to who they see fit"

So if everyone in America withdrew their deposits tomorrow, loans could still occur at their current rates?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Hope that was sarcasm

Theoretically yes. But that would tell the banks that people don't trust them anymore, so they would stop it before to many people did it.

But Again, yes they could let everyone take out their money and still lend out money. Seeing is that most people dont have much saved the only people it would really effect are the people with savings.

If a business was truly profitable it they would still be able to pay their employees, but I would take a guess that most would not be, probably because they are still paying off loans they took out to open that business. And then even people with no savings would be screwed.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

It was.

I guess that was kind of a trick question. People can't withdraw all of their deposits because *that money isn't there*. That is the whole point of FRB. So the very fact that you attempted to answer my question shows that you misunderstand how FRB works.

If even half of depositors attempted to withdraw their money simultaneously, the result would be so immediate and so catastrophic that any discussion about normal banking practices after that point would be moot.

If FRB institutions can lend at any rate, regardless of deposits, how does a bank run occur? And why has the reserve ratio settled around 9-1?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Its in the bank

The money is there, other wise how are they lending it out in the first place?

I wont pretend to know how much hard money is actually in circulation/banks, but its probably much more then you think. No one really knows, but the Fed can print as much as they want.

A true bank run can never happen cause they would close access before we would really even know how much money is actually in the banks.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

That was just too cute

"if the money isn't there, then how are they lending it?"

That is what fractional reserve banking is. I deposit $100 at the bank, and the bank loans it out to 9 other people. Now we have a total of ten people who all believe that they have $100 each, when in reality, there is only $100 at the bank, and not $1000. Your average hometown bank only has a couple thousand dollars of cash on site. The problem occurs when I show up to claim my $100 at the same time as one of the other guys. Then we both discover our money isn't there, because it does not exist. A system of credit has been built upon this base of cash.

"true bank runs" have happened countless times. The first few people in line get their money back, everyone else loses. The FDIC is only capable of insuring a tiny, tiny, tiny, sliver of all deposits in existence. The fact is, ben can't print the money fast enough to get it to every bank around the country, and even if he could, the results of the whole process would be catastrophic.

And the Fed cannot print as much as they want. The laws of economics cannot be skirted by printing up little green pieces of paper. The dollar can only bear so much before it collapses under itself, and even Ben knows that.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Why can't you get this EASY concept?

You need to look at FRB again. If a person deposits $100 and that same bank lends out $900, that means they have over that amount of deposits in the bank.

Why can't you get this EASY concept?

Do you really believe they only loan out what people put in?

If you do, you are more lost then you think.

A bank takes in only $100, and that same bank lends out $900. This is not gold, they don't have a limit to how much paper money they can lend out my friend. WAKE UP!

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

You're embarrassing yourself.

If banks could only loan out what they had in deposits, we would be under a 100% reserve system. Is that what you believe?

Or are you implying that the newly created credit exists in the assets column of the bank and behaves as base money in the same way as the initial 100$ deposit? I highly doubt that this is what you're implying, but either way, that's wrong too.

"A bank takes in only $100, and that same bank lends out $900. This is not gold,"

No one said it was? The base money is fiat dollars, not specie, but the principle is the same. Even in 100% reserve systems of the past, the receipt money would eventually be loaned out at an amount greater than the amount of deposits. However, despite what you may believe, there IS a limit to how much money a bank can loan out. As I said, in modern times, it is about 9-1. It has been much higher in the past, and it has been lower. The important thing to note, is that eventually the day comes when the bank is unable to provide depositors with their money, or it makes such a mess of trying to, that the currency collapses. In order for it to have any use whatsoever, money must have some relation to the physical goods in the economy. It is for this reason that banks can't just wildly print up as much money as they desire. Even in a fiat system, there must exist some relatively predictable relationship between the medium of exchange,and that which is being exchanged.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

You obviously didn't read

You obviously didn't read what I wrote or else you wouldn't ask a stupid question like "If banks could only loan out what they had in deposits, we would be under a 100% reserve system. Is that what you believe?"

Read what I wrote again cause you wouldn't be asking me that stupid question because this was written.
"Do you really believe they only loan out what people put in?"

It's to simple and I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you.

Sorry.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

Ok...

"You need to look at FRB again. If a person deposits $100 and that same bank lends out $900, that means they have over that amount of deposits in the bank."

You need to understand something: I don't know what you think. I only know what you write. You create a string of English words, and I interpret them based on established definitions and grammatical rules. And what you described in the above quote is a 100% reserve system.

If there is only $100 in deposits and they have loaned out $900, how on Earth are you seeing a total of deposits "over that amount" in the bank?

That is what FRB is: a syste where liabilities exceed assets. The bank loans out far more money than it holds in deposits. I don't know if you do or don't understand that, but I do know what what you described in the above quotation is most definitely NOT a FracRes system.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

READ SLOWLY.... I said there

READ SLOWLY.... I said there was a deposit of $100. In a Fractional Reserve Banking System, a bank can have more Printed Dollars then was ever deposited.

This means, the bank is lending out money they NEVER had.

I think you might be getting caught up on wording. My statement was just saying the liabilities (as you put it) are as much as a bank wants to give out.

So it doesn't matter how much money a person deposits, a bank can give out more then was deposited. Which goes back to my original argument that a bank can give back all the money anyone has ever deposited. Would this be good, I don't know. I don't even know if the majority of people have enough in there savings to actually cause a problem. It really would just depend on how much money the majority really has saved.

"If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will"

Jacque Fresco

You don't even read what

You don't even read what others write, do you?

Just crying everything out like a playbook...

SteveMT's picture

Most of them made that wealth on their own.

It's their money. They would invest in this country if the government got out of the way to let them, IMO. The engine of the world has indeed been stopped, but not by John Galt from Atlas Shrugged. Read that book. The bureaucracy has over-regulated the world. You sound like the bourgeoisie wanting to overthrow the proletariat. Look what Russia got when they did that. They got even more tyranny. Karl Marx would be pleased with your comments, and you probably haven't read the Communist Manifesto either.

One example:
"There are 22,000 New Zealand millionaires – and most of them are self-made."
http://www.readersdigest.co.nz/secrets-of-self-made-milliona...
Among the US rich, 68 percent were entirely self-made
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/luxury/britain-has-mor...
80 percent of the British sample entirely "self-made,"
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/luxury/britain-has-mor...
65 percent of Chinese and Indians have wealth categorised as entirely self-made,
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/luxury/britain-has-mor...