"Honor Thy Mother"
Father and thy Mother that thy days may be long upon the earth." been ruminateing about that phrase since finding your post, Pincarr. Is it meant to the individual or humanity as a whole? Is mother figurative as in "Mother earth"? or strictly literal as in "Jo MaMa"? Going to my Tanakh.
Happy Easter to all the Christians
I was quite surprised to read this as I had a very similar thought a week or so ago, and it felt like a bit of a "eureka" moment. I vaguely recall research that in a community facing a similar situation, many people independently have quite similar thoughts at similar times. Well, in the broadest sense, a community of 7 Billion people face a similar situation, namely everyone excluding a tiny elite (and most probably even them only in their self delusions).
Since then, after reading this article and other readers comments, I remember that vested interests and entropy are indeed the reason why this isn't happening already. Our species is more viral than rational in the nature of it's development and demise.
Anyway. My own little inspiration was that if we can borrow astronomical amounts of money against the future, doesn't that load need to in and of itself guarantee we have a future? Isn't that a standard test for taking out even a small loan, that you can pay it back, for example by being alive and able to earn, or at least that the loan is secured /insured? What we are doing is the opposite, like an individual borrowing vast amounts of unsecured money to maintain a lethal addiction. But then the banker in this concept is THE addict and his /her friends, effectively lending money they themselves print to each other to buy "fixes." And if they stop doing it, they lose. If they don't stop, we lose even more than we otherwise will. But in their eyes we are probably "surplus" or "the cause of the problem" or such so of course they will even feel justified in not stopping, as if they are the guardians of human civilization facing a horde of (apathetic) barbarians.
Well,
How about this tin hat moment…
The reason money is being "printed" so freely is that there is no intent to "repay" it. Because there is some cataclysmic (natural or cosmic - not monetary or social) event going to happen in the (near) future and to keep from having chaos and break down now, before a big SHTF even happens…
Other than that explanation, I have no other reason for such irrational behavior from our "leadership."
P.S. I don't think there is any intent to repay the "printed loans" no matter what the reason. Since the money is fiat anyway, it just "is" because it "is."
I hate it when one of my posts seemingly "kills" a thread.
I have been thinking of the above post and it really does make me wonder if we haven't really slipped over the edge of no return. San Palo to a point about a "natural" event causing a breakdown.
All the technology in the world wont help if there is no water…
Then, we hear how southern New England and Boston received record snowfall this year… snow is water right? No need to worry… And here in (not so sunny) Eastern NC, it is raining at least once or twice a week for two or three days… everything is turning green… from mold! No need to worry about water here either. However, the southeast was in a drought just five short years ago when we arrived here. Some areas are still listed as "dryer than normal."
I am not digressing to hijack the thread, rather to say, the needs are so great, I think we may have arrived at the point of no return.
C.
The sentiments are good, but the money maths is wrong.
The QE money is only tying up excess reserves in the bank. There is no trillion dollars. It's just cyphers in accounts at the federal reserve. What it does do is take unwanted deals off the banks books and that allows them to lend more freely [except they are not playing ball].
However Monetarily sovereign nations are not constrained in their ability to buy stuff. They only spend to pay bills, not to throw money from helicopters [unless those on the ground are creditors]
Every idea you have can be funded already. All it takes is to present an invoice for each job to Treasury.The government then approves the deal/s and the fed marks up the reserve accounts of whatever bank is the customer's, The bank then credits it's customer account. At which point money is created.
The idea we are borrowing from the future is quite erroneous - for sovereign governments.
All the so-called debts are just cyphers in accounts at the fed. When the government wants to sell bonds it does so to drain excess reserves from the system. Investors put up for the bonds which are shown as a debit in the Fed's reserve account and a credit in the commercial bank's reserve account. The investor earns interest, say 6% during the life of the bond. When it matures the account figures are reversed.
No money changes hands and no money is spent. It cannot be debt.
A central bank NEVER needs to borrow, So the title of the article itself is wrong. The CB can always pay in its own currency without recourse to borrowing. Why would one do that when you can just pay the debt?Why would the CB borrow its own money?
All this system is already in place .It is what happens today. But we prefer the old ways when we had commodity money. We don't today. We just need that to be generally recognised, so everything the article could want is just a few keystrokes away!
The sentiments are good, but the money maths is wrong.
The QE money is only tying up excess reserves in the bank. There is no trillion dollars. It's just cyphers in accounts at the federal reserve. What it does do is take unwanted deals off the banks books and that allows them to lend more freely [except they are not playing ball].
However Monetarily sovereign nations are not constrained in their ability to buy stuff. They only spend to pay bills, not to throw money from helicopters [unless those on the ground are creditors]
Every idea you have can be funded already. All it takes is to present an invoice for each job to Treasury.The government then approves the deal/s and the fed marks up the reserve accounts of whatever bank is the customer's, The bank then credits it's customer account. At which point money is created.
The idea we are borrowing from the future is quite erroneous - for sovereign governments.
All the so-called debts are just cyphers in accounts at the fed. When the government wants to sell bonds it does so to drain excess reserves from the system. Investors put up for the bonds which are shown as a debit in the Fed's reserve account and a credit in the commercial bank's reserve account. The investor earns interest, say 6% during the life of the bond. When it matures the account figures are reversed.
No money changes hands and no money is spent. It cannot be debt.
A central bank NEVER needs to borrow, So the title of the article itself is wrong. The CB can always pay in its own currency without recourse to borrowing. Why would one do that when you can just pay the debt?Why would the CB borrow its own money?
All this system is already in place .It is what happens today. But we prefer the old ways when we had commodity money. We don't today. We just need that to be generally recognised, so everything the article could want is just a few keystrokes away!
What you describe is a command (AKA a slave) economy. You see, there is still a limited amount of land, a limited amount of gold; and we have to decide whether it is more important to fund (with assets) a park or Bill Gaither’s farm, or Sam Meade’s railroad.
With an asset based economy and ownership, this is determined via the cloud. That is, it is determined in a d=stributed fashion: supply, demand. It is very inefficient, but it is one way of determining what to do with assets.
The alternative is a command/slave economy: the king declares that this gold goes to that lord, these women go to that brothel owner, these worker slaves go to that field and so on. Such an economy really doesn’t require computers to bother with the financing. As shown so many times through history: ISIS today, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, Britain’s destruction of Ireland, the Aztec conquest of the southwest indians, also ancient Rome, EEgypt, and so on…
All it requires is the will to do it. And the acknowledgement that everyone will be a slave at the whim of the ruler.
Don’t fool yourself that you will be the beneficiary. You will be a worker slave, doing whatever you are told until you mess up and are executed, and your wife and daughters will be there to service whomever they are told to service, and children that are concieved in the process will of course be subject to being destroyed because they are obviously of inferior stock.
A command economy is far more efficient; it just isn’t consistent with freedom, and very quickly people realize that it and its leaders need to be destroyed.