[ExI] Money Games
thespike at satx.rr.com
Mon Dec 15 04:10:38 UTC 2008
At 01:22 PM 12/14/2008 -0800, Stuart recommended:
>a cartoon that explains it quite nicely ...
Barbara Lamar the tax lawyer comments:
I don't buy Paul Grignon's statement that if interest is charged on
loans of "real" money, the bankers end up with all the money. This
would only be true (even on a theoretical level) if the banks could
loan money in excess of their reserves.
Also, I think his idea to have "the government" do the banking is
naive. The main cause of the present mess is that a small group of
people have a monopoly on the control of money. When a few
individuals have this much power, the temptation to misuse the power
is always too great. Based on my reading of history, I can't see that
it would have made any difference whether or not the Federal Reserve
Act created a system in which private banks were involved, or whether
it had created a government owned central bank. Thee have been plenty
of cases where government owned central banks caused every bit as
much trouble as the federal reserve system. The root of the problem
is concentration of power and a legal system that allows individuals
to avoid responsibility for their wrongdoing by hiding behind a
corporate or sovereign veil.
Here are some things we could do that would actual be likely to work:
1. Change corporation law so that management and shareholders can be
held liable for damage done to other persons by the corporation.
2. Get rid of central banks.
3. Get rid of government regulation of banks and set up a private
regulatory organization to which membership is voluntary. This would
be far more likely to work well than government regulation.
4. Reverse court opinions holding that depositors are creditors of
the bank, rather than the owners of the funds they have deposited.
When I deposit $100 in the bank, the bank should not increase the
balance of their assets by $100 -- my $100 does not belong on the
bank's balance sheet at all.
More information about the extropy-chat