Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr
That'd be bad enough, but if I understand the current system correctly, it is the lesser of two liabilities, with the greater one being the creation of money not through printing, but through lending it into circulation at interest, which creates a never-ending cycle whereby there can never be enough money in circulation at any given moment to satisfy the claims against it.
|
Well, yes. To me all that is details and the same thing. The technical process by which they increase the money supply does not seem essential to me, although it seems to occupy a great deal of debate space. The point is, they are diluting the pool of money. And the usual point analysts make is they and their buddies get the first shot at using the new money - to buy assets before the inflationary waves move through the rest of the economy and raise prices. Then again, that would be pretty blatant, so what analysts usually say is that instead of simply running off a few trillion dollar notes and buying the country, which would be apparent to everyone, they increase the money supply slowly and subtly, through the lending you're talking about.
Quote:
|
I'd settle for the lesser of two evils if it were within reach, and,in fact, would prefer it, until we can accurately assess the probabilities of possessing any precious metal, which is to serve as our currency.
|
Anything can serve as money, it's just that gold and silver have been found excellent through all time, for certain reasons. The key is that the money can't be falsified to enrich some and impoverish the others by money-fraud.