Weekend Watching: Maxed Out
Posted March 1st, 2008 by manystrom
output
This is the story of how the modern banking system, through credit cards and installment debt, impose a form of modern slavery on the people. First they create the money from thin air. Then they loan it to you. Then you are not only responsible for paying back what you "borrowed," but the interest charged on it as well. (And if you miss a payment, it is going to cost you double) Unfortunately, the bank didn't create the interest...they never do. So where are you supposed to get it? Ah, there is the rub my friend. There is the rub. You have to take it from some one else's principal.
Have you ever wondered why it is such a competitive, dog-eat dog world out there, and it seems as though everyone -- from the bum on the corner to the multinational bank that he begs in front of; from the late night infomercials to the pushy brokers calling you during dinner -- is trying to scratch and claw a nickel out of you? It is not because people are naturally mean, competitive money grubbers. It is because of the system, man. The system. The evil, immoral system that, through the machinations of the Federal Reserve
The banks are keeping you busy, going after someone else's principal to pay back imaginary interest. Tsk, tsk. It is there for all to see...
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Not a failure of Capitalism
We've never had real Capitalism. Rather than a level playing field, the Big Guns have controlled the system, laws, permits, licenses. So problems can't be said to represent a "failure of Capitalism"
That said, loans have to be paid back. No-one should expect a loan without paying it back promptly with a mutually acceptable interest.
We've got to get smarter...and read the fine print!
CRIPES, GUYS! HERE IS YOUR ENEMY!
First, briefly, this guy is not better than all the vids here, combined. Anyone with this much swag to sell isn't to be trusted:
http://www.daveramsey.com...
Okay, now...lemme crack my knuckles, here...ready:
Lay off with "isms." Socialism. Capitalism. Whatever! Socialism won't work because big governments are more easily corrupted, and are harder to reign in.
Capitalism is a lie because it says we can all be rich if we work hard, and that rich people should be left alone to run our lives. That's bullshit, too. The capitalists are the bankers. They are also fun people like Coca Cola, but they are also the bankers, and the bankers are the problem.
The only solution is a truly FREE MARKET. Now, I know there are other people who use those two words to mean other things, but here's what they mean to me: Private banker-created funny money is poison. That is the poison which forces both parents to work.
The MSM promoted feminism to convince women they were oppressed in the kitchen. The MSM did not say that the work duties should be shared, they lied and said that the role of mother and housewife had NO DIGNITY, and that all women should be living their business dreams, running their own businesses and all that crap, as if they could. As if most men can all run their own businesses! No, we don't all get to be Donald Trump or Oprah!
People now view a single-income family as an antique. Mission accomplished, bankers–well done!
The MSM is owned by men, and they weren't doing women any damn favours. It was all about burying us in debt. That's what happens when counterfeiters spoil the economy–we all have to work our asses off to make up the difference the thieves take, and that's what we do. Man and wife don't each have a part-time job, they BOTH work full time, and they don't ask any questions, as the fucking people view it as women being equal and liberated, and not that BOTH parents must work to make ends meet.
Banker-created funny money is the entire problem.
Our money is the blood of our economy, and civilization, and these people own the blood. The don't have to put a chain around your wrist when they have your wrist, and your arm, and the rest.
A gold standard would not be perfect, but it would be better than allowing the banksters to run the world.
Governments creating all our CREDIT would not be perfect, either, but it would be better than the bankers creating privately-owned FALSE CREDIT.
I have no quarrel with a bank lending money a rich person really has to bring to the table, and wants to lend to a poorer person for profit. They use the house as the asset, and they roll the fuckin' dice. Have fun. Most will profit, while some will fail. Whoop-de-doo. That's how banking should be, but that's not what they do. They create it from thin air, based on paperwork you sign.
If I want money in my wallet, I gotta work for it. If you wanna borrow it, I can only loan you what I worked for, and I can't use it again until after you bring it back to me. That's honest lending.
We have passed laws which allow the bankers to create funny money credit out of thin air, and then charge folks interest on it. Your credit card, like your home loan, it created by signing an agreement. That agreement to pay becomes a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT/SECURITIES ASSET, and when a bank has it, the laws allow them to declare that to be "money." That's all! Then, they charge you interest on that trick. Why isn't the government doing that, instead, and for our shared benefit?
After that, a check is written and accepted by the banking system, and you buy your house, which you must then work to pay off TWICE before the bank lets you have it. What did the bank do to deserve all that interest? Why should they have all that money you must work to earn, when they created it at will, as if they were the government? Wouldn't it be better if that profit went to the government, to pay for a hospital, instead?
The credit cards you get are for a few grand. Do some people abuse them? Yes, but for the most part, it isn't their fault, as the bankers are constantly siphoning off oceans of interest which they charge for the rental of the APPEARANCE of their funny money. We don't have any money, and when we hit hard times, we fall into the credit cards, as they want us to.
The NWO is coming, and almost here. They won't have to fire a shot. They are doing it with funny money. Our national debt is a lie, but the taxes you pay which keep you poor are not.
We are poor, working all the time, in debt, and always mesmerized by the MSM which is best friends with both political parties, and both political parties are one, as they are TOTALLY infiltrated by the CFR and other NWO groups, and it does not matter which Democrat or Republican dummy you vote for. Bush vs Kerry was pointless, and so is McCain vs Clinton, or Obama. They are only pretending to hate each other–it is theater!
The mass of people needed to take back the government through elections are equal parts too tired, poor, stupid and–most of all–DISTRACTED by the goddamned TV, photorealistic 3-D videogames, iPods, cell phones, Hollywood scandal, gossip, trivia, porn, beer, marijuana, Facebook, and all the rest of the MSM propaganda to be able to do anything! People like us, the ones who know the NWO is moving, can't get the message out, because the MSM owns everybody else.
Most of us don't have any time left for our families, or money to help each other. The schools turn our kids into fools. We have little money to run in elections ourselves, as independents, or to support others who do. The two big parties are working together, and for the bankers. The MSM is friends with them. THEY OWN IT ALL.
They are using the War on Terror as an excuse for their police state. The War on Terror may be a lie, but the police state which is being built in its name is not.
Whatever the fuck you wanna call Ron Paul, he is the solution!
He wants to end the War on Terror, and that would kill the police state.
He wants to kill the Federal Reserve and the IRS, and that would wipe out the banker-created funny money and the taxes you pay to pay interest to the international banksters.
Ron Paul would take the poison from the market, and it would be a FREE MARKET. We'd work less for more money, and even a minimum-wage job would be worth having, again.
Peace and prosperity.
That's all. Copy and paste what I wrote. Keep it, and share it.
Government regulated business is fascism not capitalism
Free Market Capitalism is liberty. Government mandated banks and legislatively created monopolies are not free market capitalism. The things you speak of against as being capitalism are fascism not capitalism.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force."
["What Is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19.]
“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”
["For the New Intellectual," For the New Intellectual, 25.
http://www.aynrand.org/si...
With all due respect...
First, another guy says this: "That said, loans have to be paid back. No-one should expect a loan without paying it back promptly with a mutually acceptable interest."
HONEST LOANS, man! Not private, banker-created fraudulent credit.
As for the other comment...are you talking to me? I said: "I have no quarrel with a bank lending money a rich person really has to bring to the table, and wants to lend to a poorer person for profit. They use the house as the asset, and they roll the fuckin' dice. Have fun. Most will profit, while some will fail. Whoop-de-doo. That's how banking should be, but that's not what they do. They create it from thin air, based on paperwork you sign."
When I said this: "Governments creating all our CREDIT would not be perfect, either, but it would be better than the bankers creating privately-owned FALSE CREDIT."
I meant, we all own our country's CREDIT. I want free market banking, but I want it to be HONEST, and have 100% backing.
If a bridge falls down, we can borrow a million bucks from a Chinese banker, plus interest. Or, we can carefully decide which projects the economy can absorb, and print the money ourselves. CAREFULLY–please don't say I'm advocating for government to just start printing like crazy.
As Ron Paul himself said, we should legalize competing currencies. I guess he meant the Liberty Dollar, a competing currency which the IRS recently shut down.
Anything to get it away from the robber barons–the banksters.
Again, I am NOT arguing for the government to regulate the industry– I just want us to stop allowing these bankers to create credit from thin air. That's what the Fed does, and what the Fed enables, with the government's permission, for all the commercial banks to do. Read the Creature from Jeckyll Island for more.
Ron Paul agrees with me. If you disagree with Paul, well...
Money ultimately
Fortune Favors the Bold
is a system of symbol manipulation.
For example, if i trained a mouse to associate say, a tiny pyramid with food, i could get him to run around a maze and do tasks based on where i placed the tiny pyramids.
If everyone was honest, we could say, ok i have 200 hypothetical credits. Mr. x: that food will be 5 credits.
Ok, you have my credits, i now have 195.
Ultimately, money is an illusion. It works because people believe in it, thus creating reality. This is what the bankers know.
Once we understand this, we can avoid many of the aspects of the depression.
An illusion backed by unjust
An illusion backed by unjust laws.
A lot like 911.
Ha!
Don't worry, the US "live-on-credit" lifestyle will end soon
Lenders have sought out high risk customers because the Fed has made sure they never experience any of that risk.
Don't worry, this will all come to an end shortly.
Over the next 12 months--as the dollar continues to weaken and US financial institutions become desperate for quick infusions of cash--an alarming percentage of Americans' debt will be purchased at a discount by foreigners, including foreign governments. Easy credit will disappear and suddenly the Fed will start talking about inflation concerns and raising interest rates (Keep reading!). Behind closed doors, the new foreign owners on Wall Street will discover the only way to be successful at this game is to have political clout--which will take them years to develop. Using US money to bail out foreign bankers will actually be portrayed politically as "an outrage". (American political business xenophobia is evidenced by how politicians reacted to Dubai Ports World a couple years ago.)
Foreign bankers, wanting to secure returns on the bad debts they purchased, will take proper measures to correct the bad lending practices, and in the process repossess many foreign-made assets bought with American credit. How ironic!
Look at it as a market-driven, global re-distribution of wealth. It will be labelled a "correction" (I love Greenspanish). Problem is a lot of those assets will be US homes and land.
Nothing we can do now except sit back, have a beer, and watch the house of cards crumble.
So what do you want to do about it?
Make the government regulate credit lenders? Aren't you forgetting we are libertarians that believe in a free market. Credit lending evils are a part (a dark part) of a free market.
Of course it is good to connect the dots between government and credit lenders, but knowledge without action will be used against you.
You have to act on that knowledge...in other words you have to be mature and wise.
There are a lot of videos listed on this thread, but the following is better than all those combined: daveramsey.com This site is all about acting on that knowledge.
Check out the Youtube video, MONEY AS DEBT
It's a neat little cartoon about how our money system got started, works, and comes to a bad end. Easily understandable.
Most people today don't know much history, or the competing ideas and philosophies that produced "history." BIG MISTAKE to take history for granted ... we believe, because we have been led to believe, that we are sooooo smart ... we don't need to understand how we got to our present state. Far worse, many of us don't know where we're going either, nor do we seem to care. We are dumber than door nails. We are going to the gulag by way of the poor house if we don't wake up soon.
Think you handle credit wisely (well I do too... right now). I have only myself to care for, I'm relatively healthy, I have a small business and I'm able to work. Should any one of these factors change, will I be so good with my credit then? That's highly questionable! You see, I have a few habits ... I like to eat and sleep in a warm bed ... not fancy mind you but still there's a price to pay. Will I whip out the cc when times get tough and they're ready to turn off the electric. YOU BET I WILL! And so will you.
You may find this hard to believe, but there was a time in history when making money wasn't the be all and end all of life. God, family, community, and living were more important. It's true, there weren't very many luxuries, but the necessities were bountiful for just about everyone.
Were there exceptions? Sure! But no one was on Prozac and people didn't kill themselves because of their credit card debt. After seeing and understainding the misery and uncontrolled greed this system causes, I'm ready to go back!
Also watch Money Masters and Zeitgeist the Movie
BTW: A couple observations
-when it comes to managing money, it isn't about how smart you are, it is about how wise you are...it is about emotional maturity. If you are in debt, you are not dumb...you have (in the vast majority of cases) been foolish.
-ditto for health: did you notice that 95% of those 'credit card victims' were between overweight and obese?
-Concerning using credit cards to pay to get electricity back on: if credit lenders went back to their stringent lending requirements, we would see many thousands of people starving on the side of the road. Large parts of the country would become third world. With TV and video, the government couldn't have that, thus the massive reduction in lending requirements are as much to do with social programming and PR as fleecing the middle class.
The last sentence of the
The last sentence of the first paragraph is dead WRONG ("You have to take it from some one else's principal").
You DO NOT have to take the money from someone else. New wealth is created all the time when people apply their skills mix it with time and mix it with the natural environment. If you have an idea, business, etc that will benefit people (create wealth), but don't have the capital, borrowing is a good way to do it. Now, inevitably, some ideas aren't as good as the person thought, but that money is then freed to go to someone else.
For example, imagine that you are a subsistence farmer and eat everything you produce, but you have designed a plow that will allow you to double your crop output. But you don't have any money to build it. You can borrow the money at interest, make the plow and then pay back the loan with the proceeds of your new crops. NEW WEALTH HAS BEEN CREATED WITHOUT HARMING ANOTHER PERSON'S PRINCIPLE.
People don't just consume wealth. There isn't a fixed amount of wealth. Wealth is created all the time.
Is our monetary policy bad? Yeah. But that sentence was too wrong to pass up.
"I am a friend of the Free State Project. Check it out, join and continue the effort!" -- Rep. Ron Paul
FreeStateProject.org
Format
Pls try to end the italics. Got it.
porcupine is confusing money and wealth
porcupine said:
"The last sentence of the first paragraph is dead WRONG ("You have to take it from some one else's principal")... NEW WEALTH HAS BEEN CREATED WITHOUT HARMING ANOTHER PERSON'S PRINCIPLE."
Porcupine is correct that new wealth can be created.
HOWEVER he is doing the classic mistake of CONFUSING WEALTH AND MONEY. They are two VERY different things.
Money represents value, and is NOT wealth. Money is a tool for facilitating economic exchange.
What the initial premise is, is that whenever a loan is repaid, the interest money is taken from the EXISTING money supply, thus SHRINKING it. Wealth is NOT destroyed, MONEY IS. However, whenever the money supply is shrunk, it tends to slow down the economy. Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winning economist), has shown that a shrinkage of the money supply is ALWAYS accompanied by recession AND vice versa. So the ONLY way to keep the economy growing is to prevent the money supply from shrinking, so the rate of loan creation must equal or exceed the rate of loan repayment.
Each time a loan is repaid, a certain amount of money in circulation is replaced by debt. This means that (a)the proportion of money in circulation that is owned by the banks is slowly increasing and (b)central banks manipulate the economy to produce low-interest fuelled booms followed by busts and (c)it's an inherently unstable system, and (d)during busts, hard assets transfer hands from the borrowers to the banks; basically in exchange for money lent that was created out of nothing.
The system was invented by Mayer Rothschild when the Bank of England was created in the 1700s. Now all central banks of the world follow this system!
There are at least 2 alternatives to this system, both which are much more fair: the gold standard, and allowing gov't its own seignorage privilege (it creates fiat money directly to spend into infrastructure, without any debt attached).
To read more about this, google "debt virus" and "compound interest paradox". A particularly good explanation is here:
http://fskrealityguide.bl...
And this cartoon video explaining it is excellent, though it's not given a particular name:
http://video.google.com/v...
and this parable:
http://www.relfe.com/plus...
Thanks RedPillGuy. You're
Thanks RedPillGuy. You're right. Good point, and thanks for pointing it out.
"I am a friend of the Free State Project. Check it out, join and continue the effort!" -- Rep. Ron Paul
FreeStateProject.org
The best vacation ever: http://www.porcfest,com
which leads back to my point
which leads back to my point that fractional banking is a better way to bring new money into the system then having the fed just print it .
that wealth can be created to offset the new intrest (as porcupine pointed out).
through fractional banking the same amount of new money can be created money to match the the newly created wealth .in theroy money supply would not be proportionally affected . leads back to all my questions about if there is a moral obligation to only use loans and fractional banking to create more wealth . creating new money while only consuming wealth would cause inflation IMHO
unregulated capitalism
I'd take unregulated capitalism any day of the week...and let the f*ck-ups deal with losing business when real competition is allowed to thrive.
The way it is now banks, doctors and business organizations prevent small competitors from truly getting a chance at operating in a free market.
If I want to sell necklaces from a stand on the street I should be allowed to do so, no licensing, no red tape, no regulations. Yet I can't because large corporations have written and have passed (through their lobbyists) the legislation that prevents a true free market from existing.
We don't even need an FDA. Why? Because plenty of people die right now from approved drugs that are bad; why not let everyone play in the field, create drugs and market them freely. Many products aren't allowed to be marketed because pharmaceutical interests prevent them from ever seeing the light of day; in a true free market there is NO influence from any one on whether or not a product may be sold to willing buyers.
If they don't work, the TRUE free market will put them out of business. They will make sure the quality is good or their doors are shuttered. Now, they are protected by the government who says since your xyz product was approved by the FDA and we deemed it safe, you can't be sued by the users when the product fails.
That is pure CRAP. It points to a corpo-ruled government that has never operated for the people and is all out against free market capitalism.
my own First Merit story
I opened an account with them and didn't realize they take debits in real time but deposits 24 to 48 hours to credit your account at their discretion. In the meantime they charge $34.00 every time you use that money, even though you have the money in the bank and they know your deposit was good, they don't acknowledge it. I deposited $450.00, within 24 hours I started paying bills with it. I had not used the account in a few weeks so I went to cash a check and the ATM said I was $482.00 overdrawn. I had 17 fees in one day, and the money was in the bank. I was horrified. I told them to cancel the account. And asked them how they could even look me in the face. I had written checks for $420.00 and the money was in the account. The woman said she would not cancel the account that I had to pay these fees. I told her to kiss my ass. I opened an account at a credit union. They do not hold your deposits 24 to 48 hours, they credit you when you deposit. The banks are pure evil and they are allowed to get away with robbery because they are in control of our nation. Biggest legal crime ring in history.
Credit Cards
When I finished seeing Maxed Out a few months back I felt empathy for those who were bitten by bad decisions. However, it was through their own free will that they made those bad decisions. If you don't want these problems then use credit responsibly. If you can't handle credit then pay cash. I'm really quite surprised to see this article on this forum.
So am I perfect? No. Yes, I have charged up more than I could afford on credit cards. Yes, I have had problems paying them back. However, those were my choices. I agreed to the terms and conditions set by the credit cards. I may not have been aware of Universal Default when I first signed on, and luckily I have not been bitten by it. That being said. It is my responsibility to pay them back and it was through my own free will that they were used at all.
Interest is not money created out of thin air. I did in fact borrow (not "borrow") money from someone else and their incentive for lending was interest. Like the interest on your car payment. Like the interest on a home loan.
"Unfortunately, the bank didn't create the interest...they never do. So where are you supposed to get it? Ah, there is the rub my friend. There is the rub. You have to take it from some one else's principal."
I don't know what you mean by this. I think you don't have an idea of how lending works. No one lends money to someone they don't know without interest. Banks are not evil unless they are proposing shady deals. You need to read or at least know what is in every monetary agreement you sign.
JOhn
Poorly themed video
I agree this video does not make the right points about the problems with the credit industry. Though they don't come right out and say it, it seems clear they think something should be done and that something would be to restrict credit card companies - not in keeping with the Ron Paul principles of personal responsibility, sound money, and free markets.
The fallacy is believing more government imposed restrictions fixes the problem. It is the government protection, regulation, and economic policies that cause these excesses.
Through government imposed regulations these business are able to convince vulnerable people to get into debt far beyond their means, have them not pay the money back and still make a profit. If we want to fix the problem it would be to remove government protection of the credit industry and allow bad debts to be unprofitable. Only allow them to lend money they actually have and make sure the free market allows competition.
If the businesses couldn't collect due to borrower being unable to repay, the business shouldn't come out ahead which continues to encourage these poor decisions by both the consumer and the business.
This is one of the symptoms of the malinvestment caused by bad economic and money policies that Ron Paul talks about, but this video does not make these important points.
From Fed's book "Modern Money Mechanics"
Page 6: "Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they recieve as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for the credits to the borrower's transaction accounts."
Page 7: "Loans are made by crediting the borrower's deposit accounts, i.e., by creating additional deposit money".
There is no law that allows the banks to exchange promissory notes/charge slips for transaction account credits. Banks cannot lend CREDIT, only cash.
However, since all our illustrious members of Congress all use credit cards, they sure don't want the banks to have to answer these facts.
When they issue you a credit card, (illegal), they are NOT LENDING YOU MONEY. They are lending you... uh, THIN AIR! and then charging you for it!
Therefore, they are losing NOTHING if you don't pay, because they didn't give you anything to start with! It's all smoke and mirrors!
Check out this website: http://howtogetridof.com/
ELIMINATE CREDIT CARD DEBT and more.
Does anyone really understand Libertarian principals anymore?
The young folks still seems attached to a socialistic view of the world, perhaps fed by the media and popular figures, and a "you owe me" worldview fomented by TV.
This quote:
"This is the story of how the modern banking system, through credit cards and installment debt, impose a form of modern slavery on the people."
...is especially telling. For some, perhaps experience will beget wisdom. Just not now, not in the context of this story.
Ron Paul does not run as a libertarian.
He has chosen to identify himself with the republican party and attempt to re-establish the constitution as the guiding force in the governing of the people of much of North America. Obviously, he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting the "post-Constitutional" party of holy empire back in line anytime soon. But he made that choice...he may see the Libertarian Party and perhaps elements of its "philosophy" as lacking, perhaps unrealistic, impractical, perhaps dogmatic. Maybe he sees the constitution as the bridge between libertarianism and socialism...moving toward solutions rather than idealistic purity. Maybe meeting the nation where it is and guiding it back based on consensus...even a 200 year old consensus. Regardless of the motivation, I applaud his effort.
While I agree they are not by necessity slaves to it, many people do indeed expect the government to protect them from the scum sucking, out of control, government sanctioned personal credit business that has evolved in our society. They really don't get that those days ended with the sainted Ronald Reagan. And the learning experience is a painful one.
As a result of the current travails, the dialogue of the role of government in our society will be re-opened and I am very glad to have Republican constitutionalist, as opposed to Libertarian crank, Ron Paul playing a role. The difference may seem subtle or a matter of semantics, but I think it is very significant and intended to be.
Ron Paul runs on Libertarian
Ron Paul runs on Libertarian principles, but as a Republican for practical reasons... getting on the ballot is horrendously difficult for "third parties" thanks to the self-preservational laws and regulations passed by the big two. That is all.
Quote: "...many people do indeed expect the government to protect them from the scum sucking, out of control, government sanctioned personal credit business that has evolved in our society."
Ridiculous! Of course they expect it, since they are used to having their hand held from cradle to grave. This fosters the sense of release from personal responsibility as normal, ensuring job security at all levels of government.
Finally, Ron Paul can play the role of pro-Constitution Republican, or Libertarian crank, if some prefer, but the difference is only in how one perceives the man. There is no difference in the message.
Yes, but perception is everything.
The message is the constitution, not any ideology...and I think that is how the Ron Paul movement can reach its potential to draw voters across the political spectrum rather than the 5% of the current republican party.
People just do not really believe that government has no role in the nation's currency and money creation. This is not necessarily from a lack of personal responsibility, it may even be a good idea...it may even be...constitutional. Ron Paul takes serious issue with the outsourcing of the financial system to a private institution called the Federal Reserve, on constitutional grounds.
I dont intend to be argumentative, but I really think Ron Paul's self description as a Republican champion of the Constitution matters tremendously today to plant the seed of a new way forward and can be a real difference maker for the future.
Good Point!
http://www.robertringer.c...
Hit it right on the head! Let us all "win our enslavement."
That's my question too
From the looks of things most of the visible Paul supporters here aren't even libertarians but anti-capitalists who mistake Paul's views for anti-capitalism. Do they have any clue that he wants no interventionist regulation of credit card companies and other capitalist businesses? No legal limit on the rate of interest charged? The abolition of the minimum wage laws? Abolition of antitrust laws? No regulation of the corporate media? Just the fact that so many Paul supporters said that their second choice was Kucinich tells me that they don't or don't care that Paul that Paul's economic philosophy is unregulated capitalism.
Not anti-capitalist
but a desire to restore constitutional government, and in that a restoration of the sense that politics is the art of the possible after living through the ideological battles of the 20th century. A sense that diverse people can still sit around a metaphorical table, vigorously debate the real issues of the day, and forge a consensus guiding action or inaction without resorting to name-calling. People are sick to death of ideologues of all stripes "running" their lives. Glorious principled revolutions of the Right, Left, what have you...they all say they will do one thing and do another. Every stinking time.
And frankly, you claiming anyone is anti-capitalist is akin to Karl Rove, a very capable propagandist (in the Bernays sense) calling anyone who questions the president a Bush hater. It rings a Pavlovian bell, but the nuance is lost.
I think Ron Paul understands that even if he were president that the ability to pass legislation or institute policies such as you propose would be directly proportional to his ability to portray himself as a simple constitutional politician, not an unregulated capitalist. Nuance can be your friend.
Libertarianism & regulation
I'd say that just a fraction of Ron Paul's supporters are actual libertarians. Although many longstanding Libertarian Party members have supported Paul in this election season, many disagree on several policy positions and have never supported him.
I certainly won't argue that all of Paul's supporters understand the genesis of libertarian views, or Paul's views, although they are generally far more sophisticated and informed than supporters of other candidates on a broad range of issues.
Your comment could be read as an implied criticism of those opposed to government regulation in certain areas, like the rate of interest on credit cards. Without addressing these point-by-point, I would just say that there are consequences to all of these regulations which are "necessary" in the first place only because we have a flawed monetary system mandated by the government.
Look at the housing bubble. If government and Federal Reserve policy didn't create the demand through artificially low interest rates and government-backed loans in the first place, homes would be a lot more affordable for everyone today. Perhaps people could be investing this difference in businesses producing goods instead making huge interest payments on inflated home loans and then importing goods from China?
If a credit card company charges 30% interest rates, it could be because:
No one is coercing borrowers to buy Louis Vuitton handbags at these rates.
By capping rates for everyone regardless of the risk they present, it means that people with solid jobs, decent credit histories, and responsible savings rates pay higher rates than they would otherwise when they decide to borrow. It also means that some people who might genuinely need and benefit from credit can't get it, because this credit is actually being borrowed by those who aren't paying enough for it. Why is this fair?
Fair observation. I think a
Fair observation. I think a lot of the younger supporters (heck, maybe older ones too) just recognize an honest man who is speaking his mind. They go for that rather than issues. Commentators have noted that personality wins over ideas. I think the Kucinich thing is that he too speaks his mind, bedamned if it hurts him politically. So Paul and Kucinich pull some of the same people to their cause.
What about the banks?
What about the sense of entitlement from the banks? You're acting like it's the citizens who are looking to get bailed out, get sweetheart deals on loans at will, and get contracts retroactively changed in our favor. It's not citizens that are writing the laws. It's not us invading the banks mailboxes with offers to enter into a credit contract.
Does anyone really understand libertarian principles, indeed.
Sigh...
It doesn't matter how "responsible" you are. It doesn't matter if you pay off any and all credit card debt the moment you receive a bill... or even if you have no credit cards at all. Credit is extended by stealing the value of Federal Reserve Notes... the ones you -must- use in this country. Even if you think you have no ties to the creditors, they are still stealing from you. -Everyone- should be angry about this... not just those buried in credit card debt.
Libertarian principles are great with a proper monetary system. Our current system stifles even the most avid libertarians for as long as they have FRNs in their wallets.
i think the only way that it
i think the only way that it ballences. is if the person getting the credit
increases the economic base by the same amount as the loan.
thern the amount of new goods/serivces increases the base at the same rate as the money supply inflated. the use of credit for casual consuming is inflationary since the only thing being added to is the money supply.
i have so many questions :)
if this is the case do the borrowers and lenders have a moral obligation. to only use credit when trying to increase the economic base ?
is this any different then people just consuming, reducing the economic base without increasing the money supply
is there any circumstance where fractional banking is a positive force for the econemy ?
what are the pros and cons ?
if we are useing a fiat money system when and how should the money expand or contract ?
is there a way we can still have market forces controll interest rates in a fiat system ?
is a fiat system bad if it isnt abused ?
is that possible ?
can a fiat system be run by market forces through a proccess of good lending and a fractional reserve banking system ?
"i think the only way that
"i think the only way that it ballences is if the person getting the credit
increases the economic base by the same amount as the loan"
There is more going on than just somebody getting credit, however.
Let's use an analogy. Let's say I rob a bank (and thus, "the people's" money) to the tune of $100,000, but that I use the money to contribute to society, create jobs, and ultimately add to the economic base. The end result was good, although the means were questionable at best.
The credit system in this country is far worse by comparison. Instead of me robbing the bank, I must pay a third party to rob it for me. They hand me the $100,000 they stole... but I must eventually pay them $100,000 plus interest for the service! That puts a damper on my ability to contribute to the economic base... and for what?
My point being... a fiat system might "work", except that inevitably there are creditors skimming huge chunks off the top (in exchange for doing or providing nothing whatsoever, really) who ruin the whole thing, not to mention the inevitable government bloat that results from such a system. Fiat systems cater to greedy insiders, and history has never proven otherwise.
Disappointing comments above
I am disappointed that so many Paul supporters, people who pride themselves on their above average knowledge of the financial system and the Federal Reserve, take the easy route and blame these people for their woes.
Yes, financial irresponsibility exists, and you can go back throughout our history to find many, many examples of default, bankruptcy, and positively embarrassing debt. That is not a recent phenomenon, and it's not what this documentary is describing.
Instead, this documentary is describing that the banks want the entire population to do business with them, not on an equal, fair basis, but on unequal terms. They want a bargaining position that is privileged, where they can change contract terms at will while we can't. For example, the changes to the bankruptcy laws effectively change the contractual terms of every loan in effect now - without both parties agreeing to it. The above apologists essentially excuse a system of financial oligopoly by blaming mere human failings. This is an insufficient, and frankly embarassing, position to associate with Ron Paul.
This is not about responsibility and prudent financial planning. This about a predatory industry that prints money out of thin air - money that we are OBLIGATED to accept as payment for debt - and then charges us more and more for using it, more and more if we should, God forbid, make a human mistake in our lives. This is a story of how corporations - those artificial creations of government privilege - matter more than people. This is a story about how a oligopy of financial conglomerates can distort the price signals to consumers and then blame them for their bad decisions - as if a corporation like Chase could run it's business well if other institutions had a virtually free hand to distort the price signals THEY base their decisions on.
Sorry, Reaganites above, but an offer of credit - and how many of those are sent out every year, some billions? - is an ECONOMIC INDICATOR for people. They use it, among other signals from the market, to plan their lives. When privileged banks, who gain their power not by competitive produciton in the market but by favored status with the politicians, manipulate these signals, you can't simply turn around and blame people for not understanding economics.
Unfortunately, the comments are very indicative of a libertarianism much like what William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman peddled, where the elite establishment just happens to exist and the rest of us peons should adjust ourselves to it, rather than a true market where nobody has the upper hand as a matter of law. There's a term for that: vulgar libertarianism. When people don't realize that Paul has a radical, revolutionary message, they tend to slip back into thinking that the arbitrary rules of the system are the right rules, that the laws corporations cooked up are themselves just because, well, they're the laws. I would hope Paulites would be more reflective about the state of our country, and urge them to embrace the radical message of Paul and his Austrian economics (or seek out other approaches, such as mutualism).
I've written more on this topic here.
Another fight in this revolution
Stop the madness People!! Cut up the credit cards now. Suffer if you have to but do not continue to support these elites.
Invest in gold and silver and do not forget your guns.
We have a fight on the horizon to save this once great nation.
Fractional reserve banking
should be made a crime against humanity.
Government collusion
At the heart of the problem is the perception of government oversight, which prompts many to let their guard down. I would imagine the credit issue wasn't nearly the problem it is currently before government began "regulating" it.
the credit issue
is a direct result of the securitization of funky debt enabled by the dodging of regulation. Of course, thats the mantra isnt it...free the market, de-regulation...I agree, collusion of the gov't and The Street. I just wonder if anyone really actually ever thought that turning a blind eye towards the moneychangers was a good government policy...or is the governing class a willing co-conspirator in the most powerful piece of typically American "freedom-based" propaganda ever created. Either way, people are certainly more alone in the crosshairs than they realize.
Yes, alone in the crosshairs
Point is, people at the highest levels have proven to be quite corruptible, thereby negating the effect of government regulation. This is borne out time and time again, from Congress to various government agencies. (FDA immediately comes to mind!) Our big government and myriad regulations have bred a "softer" citizenry; despite actions to the contrary, we continue to believe that government has our best interest at heart. Our self-protection instinct has been significantly (and purposely) numbed. Often times, regulations are enacted or agencies formed merely to allow special interests to gain a foothold (think the Federal Reserve - created with the stated goal of "tempering" the market; turns out it's a cash cow for the elite.) It also helps that the bankers write the banking regs., the drug industry writes the drug regs, etc., etc., etc.
The solution
Below is a link to the solution to malinvestment.
The solution to America's economic problems. Here is an article supporting Ron Paul’s position on doing away with the Fed. There are some Ron Paul supporters that asked Bill Denman to answer some of the questions raised at the Ron Paul meet up group in Sandpoint, Idaho.
http://christianlibertypa...
its just stupid
that people don't educate themselves, or even their own son's and daughters for that matter, about the dangers of credit cards. this video screams that
It's even more stupid that
It's even more stupid that people think getting out of the credit system themselves is enough. The credit system, as it stands, steals from you regardless of whether or not you use credit cards. Having Federal Reserve Notes is all it takes to allow the creditors to steal from you.
True and not true
I agree with some of that, especially about how through regulations certain banking concerns have a government enforced monopoly. But there is nothing wrong with lending individuals money with interest. If you need a loan, do you expect to get it with no interest? Why would someone take a huge risk and lend you money if there was no gain for them?
And the interest should not be fixed at any particular rate. It should float on the free market and vary from person to person as the various lenders see fit. This is a mutual agreement between two entities. If a person doesn't like the interest rate don't sign the contract.
You missed the part about
You missed the part about the lenders creating money out of thin air. You would laugh If I gave you some play money and asked you to pay me back with real money. But that's what is happening. The Federal Reserve prints money for virtually nothing, then through the banks you borrow it and pay it back at interest with your own sweat and blood.
Recommended Reading:
The Creature from Jekyll Island ..... all about the history of the Fed, what it does, how it effects us, etc. (that's a very simplisitc description, but feel free to check out Amazon's description of it ....)
Check Your 401k and Other Investments
If and when the Fed is forced to start raising rates, Citi and all the others will start laying off employees and shutting offices. You don't want to own stock in this industry.
The mortgage and real estate industries go through the same cycles, expanding when business is good, and shrinking when it dries up.
IMissLiberty
Just bought
Citi bank stock a while back.. They don't need to layoff huge amounts of people or close tons of offices..They will simply sell off assets or divisions to raise cash giving even some even more intriguing stock possibilities...I bought Bank of America also
Umm, selling assets isn't
Umm, selling assets isn't likely to help the stock. In a depressed business climate for banks, any assets/divisions they try to sell will likely sell for FAR less than during the boom times (if all banks are going through the same problem, no one is going to pay "big money" for bank assets).
You might argue that bank stocks have tanked to the point where "bottom feeding" might be profitable, but don't think banks are going to get rich and the stock prices rise because they sell off assets a fire sale prices...
www.ronpaul2008.com
The federal reserve...
is partially to blame for this. They're the ones who start the "easy credit" cycle. The "print" the money and determine the lending rates.
The the banks and the lenders are to blame. Giving loans to people who cannot afford it, and charging 18%, 29%, 35% on credit cards and piling on crazy late fees. Sending people offers who already defaulted on them once, just to squeeze another nickel out of them.
And the customers are to blame. If you can't pay for it, don't buy it.
Big government is to blame. That's where it all starts. Lobbyists paying money to have their way.
Go Ron Paul.
Anti-capitalist propaganda
is all this is.