< HOME  Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Hip, Hip, HOORAH!!!

Three cheers for What Really Happened!!!

They posted a link to that exposes the scam of the privately-owned interest-based monetary system!!!

Hope is on the horizon my friends. That site gets a lot of exposure. I visit it ALL the time. It's my homepage. It's what inspired me to get involved and spread the truth!

And, I hope that everyone that reads this blog is doing their best to spread the truth!

Together, we WILL win back our freedom

7 Comments:

At Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Blogger Shirazi said...

Your blurb under the title is so true. It attracted me instantly here. Nice blog.

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Blogger qrswave said...

Thanks for stopping by, Shirazi.

Universal truths ring true for everyone; that's what makes them so important to discover.

Knowledge is power, and communication is key!

If you believe this truth, then pass it on!

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Anonymous Jim Bradley said...

Except that your arguments are wrong. If you want to attack the banking system, you've got to get the mechanism right and it seems like you link to lots of stuff that is naive and uneducated. Most of your stuff here doesn't get it even close. The mechanism is to force all banks to inflate at the same rate, thus avoiding the need to redeem actual specie from one another as the Fed defends the Fed funds rate ... it's a "legal" oligopoly based (ultimately) on government debt as Central Bank reserves. Each bank, when creating money, effectively dilutes the existing pool of dollars (thereby taking value out of your pocket) to lend to other people and collecting interest on THAT. It has nothing to do with "you can't pay the principle and interest" because the bank's expenditures when they collect interest return to the bank in the form of interest payments. Banks have no purpose in accumulating money without having that money able to buy something. You need a serious rehash of your website. Good Luck.

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Blogger qrswave said...

Thanks, for the good wishes, Jim.

I appreciate your comments, but they tend to confirm rather than refute my position.

For example, you say "...it's a "legal" oligopoly based (ultimately) on government debt as Central Bank reserves. Each bank, when creating money, effectively dilutes the existing pool of dollars (thereby taking value out of your pocket) to lend to other people and collecting interest on THAT."

And, you think this is okay?

It's legalized robbery!

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005, Anonymous Jim Bradley said...

No one will agree with you if they can poke holes in your argument. I think 80% of what you've got as links are false.

I don't agree with the government controlled banking system -- but banks aren't entirely at fault (being "born after the crime" of the institution of the Federal Reserve in 1913). You should read Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done To Our Money?" off of Mises.org or Amazon.com, then retain your criticism for illegitimate instead of legitimate banking. Lending will always be done at interest, and that interest will equal the return on capital (why would you forgo current consumption unless you can get a return for your trouble? And why would you earn less return lending if for the same risk you can earn more by investing in production?) The bottom line problem is the centralized ability to create money (and to force you to remit taxes in that money thereby creating a demand for it).

 
At Thursday, November 17, 2005, Blogger qrswave said...

Thanks for your comments, Jim.

I really admire your tenacity in maintaining your position despite its shortcomings. And, I mean that sincerely. I agree that the Federal Reserve System is at the heart of the problems we face today. But, by the way, it is NOT government controlled. It is entirely independent, notwithstanding the president's power to appoint its directors.

And, I want to clarify that I am not against banking. As I said in another conversation with Daysman "banking is essential to a robust economy." But, banking does not require charging interest. Banks can charge fixed fees for their services.

As I have demonstrated fairly clearly, lending at interest carries with it far too much risk that it will be employed for exploitative rather than productive purposes, resulting in massive misallocation of capital into inefficient activities, with the potential of transferring increasingly large amounts of the borrower's earned capital to the lender such that the borrower becomes the lender's slave.

So, my argument is really one of economic efficiency and liberty, neither of which is advanced in an economy dominated by interest bearing loans.

In any event, I understand how you may be confused about the differences between lending at interest and risk based investment. If the differences were not subtle, interest would have never received such widespread acceptance. But, as anyone can see from the current state of the capital markets, the difference between the two cannot be overstated.

 
At Thursday, November 17, 2005, Anonymous Jim Bradley said...

A lender gets a return for deferring consumption as deferring consumption is a cost (it's painful to save). Since you propose giving lenders zero return, I submit the utopia you envision will not be possible without a massive exercise in state enforced lending with punitive fines, jail, etc. -- a reduction of liberty, not an expansion of it.

The exponential rise in debt is from the central bank holding interest rates artificially low and thus encouraging borrowing to offset inflation, while defending the banking system with a currency that can be expanded at will (and shifting risk to depositors with the depreciation of their savings). Since banks don't have much "savings" of their own, they bear little of the risk. That's an outcome of the structure, not of the illegitimacy of compound interest.

Further, compound interest and simple interest are the same ... i.e. one can be mathematically transformed into the other. For instance, 6% simple annual interest yields $60 from $1000 over one year. Monthly compounded interest of 5.841 because (1+.05841/12)^12=1.06 or 6% additional.

Clearly there are serious problems with these views. Join up, but be right.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home