Discussion:
The cuts explained in one minute forty-nine seconds
(too old to reply)
thedarkman
2011-02-14 12:14:34 UTC
Permalink
nice and simple


Richard McKenzie
2011-02-14 13:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
nice and simple
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
Is the government still going ahead with the splitting up of banks
into high street and mechant to prevent a repeat in the future.
Nigel Oldfield
2011-02-14 13:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
nice and simple
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
Excellent.

WM
allantracy
2011-02-14 17:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Francis Burton
2011-02-14 18:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by allantracy
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?

Francis
Cynic
2011-02-14 19:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by allantracy
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?
You may not believe the theory, so maybe take a look at what actually
happens in countries that simply print money when they don't have
enough. Zimbabwe might be a good start.
--
Cynic
Francis Burton
2011-02-15 15:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Francis Burton
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?
You may not believe the theory, so maybe take a look at what actually
happens in countries that simply print money when they don't have
enough. Zimbabwe might be a good start.
I'm sure printing too much money can be disastrous, but is expanding
the money supply always necessarily harmful?

Francis
Cynic
2011-02-15 16:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Cynic
You may not believe the theory, so maybe take a look at what actually
happens in countries that simply print money when they don't have
enough. Zimbabwe might be a good start.
I'm sure printing too much money can be disastrous, but is expanding
the money supply always necessarily harmful?
If it is a *permanent* increase, all it can possibly do is devalue the
currency involved. Consider that the total amount of money *in use*
must by its nature always be equal to the total productivity of the
people who are using that money, because at its very base, money *is*
productivity in token form. Increase the amount of money in use
without increasing the productivity, and the value of the money goes
down. Decrease the amount of money in use (which can be done by
locking some away in long-term savings etc.), and its value increases.
--
Cynic
allantracy
2011-02-14 20:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by allantracy
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?
Oh all of it is so wrong, all arguments based on dogmatic left wing
prejudice - economics according to Keith and Candice Marie, if only it
were so simple.

Basically, the f**kwitts are arguing for printing money and deflating
our way out of the problem through tolerating inflation.

Well actually, that’s what got us into this f**king mess in the first
place, not the gambling on derivatives.

It was allowing housing markets to inflate at 20% a year for over a
decade and for certain governments (yes that includes Brown) pumping
up the money supply (cheap credit) that allowed that to happen.

Indeed, it was only by virtue of banks having their casino banking
arms that actually kept several of them in business, when the crisis
hit.

The morality of what they're proposing would mean for creditors also
passes them by, on the grounds that they clearly believe those that
lent us the money are all stinking rich capitalist bastards.

First problem - the foreign banks that lent the government money
weren’t stupid enough to lend us pounds sterling only to standby and
watch cynical politicians then trash the pound.

Second problem - many of those rich capitalist bastards that lent the
government money were actually lending our pension funds.

Third problem – printing money is pissing into the wind, our housing
market is f**ked and no amount or printing money is going to stop
those prices crashing eventually as they now need to so do.

Interest rates must now rise and yes that will f**k a lot of people
that are already being f**ked by higher taxes and public sector
spending cuts.

Recessions can be made less painful by spreading out their effect,
unfortunately we are not in a recession we are in a correction, a
correction from thirteen years of excess, the economy is back where it
belonged all along and the sooner we take it on the chin rather than
running away the better for all us
truth
2011-03-01 08:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by allantracy
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?
Oh all of it is so wrong, all arguments based on dogmatic left wing
prejudice - economics according to Keith and Candice Marie, if only it
were so simple.

Basically, the f**kwitts are arguing for printing money and deflating
our way out of the problem through tolerating inflation.

Well actually, that’s what got us into this f**king mess in the first
place, not the gambling on derivatives.

All put with not a brain in the crowd, and what brains there are trying to
prove - teady as she goes, everything is fine with the old system.
Abe Lincoln

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln77.html
While there he worked at several jobs including operating a store,
surveying, and serving as postmaster. He impressed the residents with his
character, wrestled the town bully, and earned the nickname "Honest Abe."
Lincoln, who stood nearly 6-4 and weighed about 180 pounds, saw brief
service in the Black Hawk War, and he made an unsuccessful run for the
Illinois legislature in 1832. He ran again in 1834, 1836, 1838, and 1840,
and he won all 4 times. (Lincoln was a member of the Whig Party; he
remained
a Whig until 1856 when he became a Republican). Additionally, he studied
law
in his spare time and became a lawyer in 1836. Stories that Lincoln had a
romance with a pretty girl named Ann Rutledge may well be true. Sadly, Ann
died in 1835.

He was not a fool for unnecessary wars

In 1846 Lincoln ran for the United States House of Representatives and
won.
While in Washington he became known for his opposition to the Mexican War
and to slavery. He returned home after his term and resumed his law
practice
more seriously than ever. Early in 1851 Lincoln's father died.

Lincoln's domestic policies included support for the Homestead Act. This
act
allowed poor people in the East to obtain land in the West. Also, Lincoln
signed legislation entitled the National Banking Act which established a
national currency and provided for the creation of a network of national
banks. In addition, he signed tariff legislation that offered protection
to
American industry and signed a bill that chartered the first
transcontinental railroad. Lincoln's foreign policy was geared toward
preventing foreign intervention in the Civil War.


Unfortunately no Andy jacksons in the crowd. So borrowing money better than
using your own?????

President Andrew Jackson,

President Andrew Jackson, the only one of our presidents whose
administration totally abolished the National Debt, condemned the
international bankers as a "den of vipers" which he was determined to "rout
out" of the fabric of American life. Jackson claimed that if only the
American people understood how these vipers operated on the American scene
"there would a revolution before morning." http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=99
In 1828, immediately upon his election as the new President of the US,
President Andrew Jackson began an investigation of the Second Bank of the
United States. President Jackson argued that the bank was privately owned
with stockholders from foreign nations who had political agendas at odds
with the United States. President Jackson, an avowed Christian, is known for
these famous words against the Rothschilds:

— “You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the
Eternal God, I will rout you out.” —

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=99

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm



In this economic recovery Hitler hit upon something which helped to arouse
the everlasting hatred of the international banking community: instead of
basing Germany's recovery on enormous loans from foreign and local banks,
Hitler based the German economy on a barter system, by which he could get
much of what he needed by exchanging German surplus for the surplus of other
countries - in common language, by swapping.

The next radical change Hitler brought about was to take the right to print
money away from private banking institutions - which he viewed as Jewish -
and restored the sole right to print money to the German state itself (it is
interesting to compare the contemporary systems in both Britain and America,
where consortiums of private bankers - the Federal Reserve in America and
the Bank of England - print the money and then "sell" it to the governments,
incurring the massive national debts of these countries).



http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html



N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England
______________________________________ |
| | J. Henry
Schroder |
Banking | Corp. |
| Brown, Shipley - Morgan Grenfell - Lazard - |
& Company & Company Brothers |
| | |
--------------------| -------| | |
| | | | | | Alex Brown -
Brown Bros. - Lord Mantagu - Morgan et Cie -- Lazard ---| & Son |
Harriman Norman | Paris Bros | |
| / | N.Y. | | |
| | | | | Governor, Bank |
J.P. Morgan Co -- Lazard ---| | of England / N.Y.
Morgan Freres | | 1924-1938 /
Guaranty Co. Paris | | /
Morgan Stanley Co. | /



http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-answers-a-20070811232038AAlkhUR-k-New+England



There is a connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and
the London banks which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through
their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.
The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co.,
and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference
at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent
successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who
purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
In 1914 a few families (blood

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

On the stolen money Nathan made,

"no less than four profits:

i) On the sale of Wellington's paper which he bought at 50 cents on the
dollar and collected at par;
ii) on the sale of gold to Wellington;
iii) on its repurchase; and
iv) on forwarding it to Portugal."

1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply gold to both Wellington's
army (through Nathan in England) and Napoleon's army (through Jacob in
France), and begin their policy of funding both sides in wars. The
Rothschilds love wars because they are massive generators of risk free debt.

This is because they are guaranteed by the government of a country, and
therefore the efforts of the population of that country, and it doesn't
matter if that country loses the war because the loans are given on the
guarantee that the victor will honour the debts of the vanquished.



http://www.codshit.com/rothschild.asp









----- Original Message -----

From: "Stephen Blackpool" <***@yahoo.com>

Newsgroups:
alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.republicans

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:03 PM

Subject: Matt Taibbi on Goldman "The Giant Squid" Sachs: "They raped the
taxpayer, and they raped their clients.



Seven Cons......

Wall Street's Bailout Hustle

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle/print

Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions
we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the
conditions for another crash

MATT TAIBBI

Posted Feb 17, 2010 5:57 AM

...

CON #1 THE SWOOP AND SQUAT

By now, most people who have followed the financial crisis know that
the bailout of AIG was actually a bailout of AIG's "counterparties" —
the big banks like Goldman to whom the insurance giant owed billions
when it went belly up.

What is less understood is that the bailout of AIG counter-parties
like Goldman and Société Générale, a French bank, actually began
before the collapse of AIG, before the Federal Reserve paid them so
much as a dollar. Nor is it understood that these counterparties
actually accelerated the wreck of AIG in what was, ironically,
something very like the old insurance scam known as "Swoop and Squat,"
in which a target car is trapped between two perpetrator vehicles and
wrecked, with the mark in the game being the target's insurance
company — in this case, the government.

...

CON #2 THE DOLLAR STORE

In the usual "DollarStore" or "Big Store" scam — popularized in movies
like The Sting — a huge cast of con artists is hired to create a whole
fake environment into which the unsuspecting mark walks and gets
robbed over and over again. A warehouse is converted into a makeshift
casino or off-track betting parlor, the fool walks in with money,
leaves without it.

The two key elements to the Dollar Store scam are the whiz-bang
theatrical redecorating job and the fact that everyone is in on it
except the mark. In this case, a pair of investment banks were dressed
up to look like commercial banks overnight, and it was the taxpayer
who walked in and lost his shirt, confused by the appearance of what
looked like real Federal Reserve officials minding the store.

...

CON #3 THE PIG IN THE POKE

At one point or another, pretty much everyone who takes drugs has been
burned by this one, also known as the "Rocks in the Box" scam or, in
its more elaborate variations, the "Jamaican Switch." Someone sells
you what looks like an eightball of coke in a baggie, you get home
and, you dumbass, it's baby powder.

The scam's name comes from the Middle Ages, when some fool would be
sold a bound and gagged pig that he would see being put into a bag;
he'd miss the switch, then get home and find a tied-up cat in there
instead. Hence the expression "Don't let the cat out of the bag."

The "Pig in the Poke" scam is another key to the entire bailout era.
After the crash of the housing bubble — the largest asset bubble in
history — the economy was suddenly flooded with securities backed by
failing or near-failing home loans. In the cleanup phase after that
bubble burst, the whole game was to get taxpayers, clients and
shareholders to buy these worthless cats, but at pig prices.

...

CON #4 THE RUMANIAN BOX

One of the great innovations of Victor Lustig, the legendary
Depression-era con man who wrote the famous "Ten Commandments for Con
Men," was a thing called the "Rumanian Box." This was a little machine
that a mark would put a blank piece of paper into, only to see real
currency come out the other side. The brilliant Lustig sold this
Rumanian Box over and over again for vast sums — but he's been outdone
by the modern barons of Wall Street, who managed to get themselves a
real Rumanian Box.

How they accomplished this is a story that by itself highlights the
challenge of placing this era in any kind of historical context of
known financial crime. What the banks did was something that was never
— and never could have been — thought of before. They took so much
money from the government, and then did so little with it, that the
state was forced to start printing new cash to throw at them. Even the
great Lustig in his wildest, horniest dreams could never have dreamed
up this one.

...

THE BIG MITT

All of that Rumanian box paper was made even more valuable by running
it through the next stage of the grift. Michael Masters, one of the
country's leading experts on commodities trading, compares this part
of the scam to the poker game in the Bill Murray comedy Stripes. "It's
like that scene where John Candy leans over to the guy who's new at
poker and says, 'Let me see your cards,' then starts giving him
advice," Masters says. "He looks at the hand, and the guy has bad
cards, and he's like, 'Bluff me, come on! If it were me, I'd bet
everything!' That's what it's like. It's like they're looking at your
cards as they give you advice."

In more ways than one can count, the economy in the bailout era turned
into a "Big Mitt," the con man's name for a rigged poker game.
Everybody was indeed looking at everyone else's cards, in many cases
with state sanction. Only taxpayers and clients were left out of the
loop.

...

CON #6 THE WIRE

Here's the thing about our current economy. When Goldman and Morgan
Stanley transformed overnight from investment banks into commercial
banks, we were told this would mean a new era of "significantly
tighter regulations and much closer supervision by bank examiners," as
The New York Times put it the very next day. In reality, however, the
conversion of Goldman and Morgan Stanley simply completed the
dangerous concentration of power and wealth that began in 1999, when
Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act — the Depression-era law that
had prevented the merger of insurance firms, commercial banks and
investment houses. Wall Street and the government became one giant
dope house, where a few major players share valuable information
between conflicted departments the way junkies share needles.

One of the most common practices is a thing called front-running,
which is really no different from the old "Wire" con, another scam
popularized in The Sting. But instead of intercepting a telegraph wire
in order to bet on racetrack results ahead of the crowd, what Wall
Street does is make bets ahead of valuable information they obtain in
the course of everyday business.

...

CON #7 THE RELOAD

Not many con men are good enough or brazen enough to con the same
victim twice in a row, but the few who try have a name for this
excellent sport: reloading. The usual way to reload on a repeat victim
(called an "addict" in grifter parlance) is to rope him into trying to
get back the money he just lost. This is exactly what started to
happen late last year.

It's important to remember that the housing bubble itself was a
classic confidence game — the Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme is any
scam in which old investors must be continually paid off with money
from new investors to keep up what appear to be high rates of
investment return. Residential housing was never as valuable as it
seemed during the bubble; the soaring home values were instead a
reflection of a continual upward rush of new investors in mortgage-
backed securities, a rush that finally collapsed in 2008.

But by the end of 2009, the unimaginable was happening: The bubble was
re-inflating. A bailout policy that was designed to help us get out
from under the bursting of the largest asset bubble in history
inadvertently produced exactly the opposite result, as all that
government-fueled capital suddenly began flowing into the most
dangerous and destructive investments all over again. Wall Street was
going for the reload.

It was allowing housing markets to inflate at 20% a year for over a
decade and for certain governments (yes that includes Brown) pumping
up the money supply (cheap credit) that allowed that to happen.

Indeed, it was only by virtue of banks having their casino banking
arms that actually kept several of them in business, when the crisis
hit.

The morality of what they're proposing would mean for creditors also
passes them by, on the grounds that they clearly believe those that
lent us the money are all stinking rich capitalist bastards.

First problem - the foreign banks that lent the government money
weren’t stupid enough to lend us pounds sterling only to standby and
watch cynical politicians then trash the pound.

Second problem - many of those rich capitalist bastards that lent the
government money were actually lending our pension funds.

Third problem – printing money is pissing into the wind, our housing
market is f**ked and no amount or printing money is going to stop
those prices crashing eventually as they now need to so do.

Interest rates must now rise and yes that will f**k a lot of people
that are already being f**ked by higher taxes and public sector
spending cuts.

Recessions can be made less painful by spreading out their effect,
unfortunately we are not in a recession we are in a correction, a
correction from thirteen years of excess, the economy is back where it
belonged all along and the sooner we take it on the chin rather than
running away the better for all us
Ray Fischer
2011-03-02 08:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by allantracy
Post by Francis Burton
Post by allantracy
What a load of naive bollocks - that would get laughed out of fifth
form economics.
Which part of it is wrong, specifically?
Oh all of it is so wrong, all arguments based on dogmatic left wing
prejudice - economics according to Keith and Candice Marie, if only it
were so simple.
Basically, the f**kwitts are arguing for printing money and deflating
our way out of the problem through tolerating inflation.
That's the GOP solution, rightard. Spend the country into ruin,
refuse to raise taxes, and then make the dollar worthless and sell of
the nation's assets.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
***@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Francis Burton
2011-02-14 18:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
nice and simple
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
Here is the full text for those who prefer not to squint at
tiny writing...

"Approximately 97% of all the money in the world exists only as credit;
it has no tangible existence.

This money has been created by the banks as figures in a book - or
nowadays, as blips in cyberspace.

Because it is created as an interest-bearing debt, it is irredeemable.
For reasons that have nothing to do with the well-being of its citizens
the government borrows from the banks instead of creating it as has
been done in the past by for example Abraham Lincoln and the Guernsey
Parliament (The States).

Recently, the banks lost billions of this money that has no tangible
existence by gambling on the derivatives markets, and were bailed out
by the taxpayer - you - with no mandate, indeed with no consultation.
This happened on both sides of the Atlantic.

Now there is a shortage of credit because banks won't lend this thing
that has no tangible existence to businesses or to governments unless
they are able to repay these loans with REAL money.

In Britain, the Crown could create all the credit necessary for public
works, but the Treaty of Maastricht forbids this.

Also, government economists claim it would be irresponsible to do this
because such credit creation would cause inflation.

Inflation is said to be caused by too much money chasing too few goods.

Clearly there is not enough money in circulation - because nobody has
any except the banks.

But if the government creates it itself, there will be too much.

Clearly, they want to have their cake and eat it.

Because the British Government and governments worldwide - including
the supposedly so mighty US government - are either unable or afraid to
stand up to the banks, public services are being cut, the economy is
grinding to a halt, and you children are being enslaved.

http://www.financialreform.info "

Francis
Ray Fischer
2011-02-15 06:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by thedarkman
nice and simple
And laughably wrong.
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
There mere fact that money doesn't have a physical existence does
NOT mean that it is credit or borrowing.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
***@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Francis Burton
2011-02-15 15:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
And laughably wrong.
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
There mere fact that money doesn't have a physical existence does
NOT mean that it is credit or borrowing.
So where does most/all of the money in the money supply come from?

Francis
Cynic
2011-02-15 16:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Ray Fischer
Post by thedarkman
http://youtu.be/nxOmRjKW6XA
There mere fact that money doesn't have a physical existence does
NOT mean that it is credit or borrowing.
So where does most/all of the money in the money supply come from?
Money is an abstract token that is *supposed* to represent the
tangible fruit of someone's labour. Therefore it should not be issued
(created) except in exchange for something tangible, or the
realiseable promise of something tangible.

Start from the very simple basics. A barter society. Then realise
that it is not always convenient to exchange what you have to offer
directly with the person who has what you want at the time you want
it. So substitute a system of "IOU's" instead. The cobbler wants
some potatos from the farmer, but the farmer does not need shoes. So
the cobbler takes the potatos in return for an IOU for (say) two pairs
of shoes. The farmer needs some chain. So he asks the blacksmith to
make him some chain, and in exchange gives him your IOU for two pairs
of shoes. The blacksmith in turn exchages one of those IOUs for a
loaf of bread from the baker, and the other for some meat from the
butcher. Months later the butcher knocks on your door with your IOU
and demands a pair of shoes, and later still the baker does the same.

Now figure out what would happen if someone who doesn't produce
anything that anyone wants starts forging your IOUs to get goods and
services. Eventually you will be getting more people knocking on your
door with IOUs and demanding shoes than you are able to make shoes
for. So perhaps you will say, "There are too many IOUs in circulation
- from now on you will need to give me *2* IOUs for a pair of shoes."
--
Cynic
Francis Burton
2011-02-15 17:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
[...]
Now figure out what would happen if someone who doesn't produce
anything that anyone wants starts forging your IOUs to get goods and
services. Eventually you will be getting more people knocking on your
door with IOUs and demanding shoes than you are able to make shoes
for. So perhaps you will say, "There are too many IOUs in circulation
- from now on you will need to give me *2* IOUs for a pair of shoes."
But isn't it the case that there is already a huge excess of
IOUs such that they could never be "cashed in" (converted to
tangle currency, or equivalent goods or services)? An attempt
to do so would cause a run on the banks. Isn't this situation
the inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking?

(Btw, thanks for your patience.)

Francis
Cynic
2011-02-15 17:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Cynic
Now figure out what would happen if someone who doesn't produce
anything that anyone wants starts forging your IOUs to get goods and
services. Eventually you will be getting more people knocking on your
door with IOUs and demanding shoes than you are able to make shoes
for. So perhaps you will say, "There are too many IOUs in circulation
- from now on you will need to give me *2* IOUs for a pair of shoes."
But isn't it the case that there is already a huge excess of
IOUs such that they could never be "cashed in" (converted to
tangle currency, or equivalent goods or services)? An attempt
to do so would cause a run on the banks. Isn't this situation
the inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking?
There is a huge excess of currency *in existence* yes. Fortunately
most of it is dormant (essentially not in use). It is only the money
that is in use (or likely to be used in the near future) that has an
effect on the economy. Consider that it does not matter how many
IOU's a person may have stuffed in their mattress, they only become a
problem when they start being *redeemed*. Similarly a country could
print as much money as it liked without ill effect so long as it was
never put into circulation.
Post by Francis Burton
(Btw, thanks for your patience.)
NP. The details of economics can get very complex, but to grasp the
basics you really need to reduce it down to a small, simple fixed
community. It is then fairly easy to understand, and you can
gradually start introducing various complexities, most of which can be
imagined (at least in principle) wrt the small simple fixed community
model. "Market forces" can be illustrated by asking "How do we decide
how many pairs of shoes a side of beef is worth"?
--
Cynic
Nigel Oldfield
2011-02-15 16:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Fischer
There mere fact that money doesn't have a physical existence does
NOT mean that it is credit or borrowing.
No, it means it is nothing.

WM
Ray Fischer
2011-02-16 04:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nigel Oldfield
Post by Ray Fischer
There mere fact that money doesn't have a physical existence does
NOT mean that it is credit or borrowing.
No, it means it is nothing.
Then give me yours. I can use it to buy lunch.

Or were you lying about it being "nothing"?
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
***@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Loading...