A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind -

Titos

Can't stop. Won't stop. Please stop.
kiwifarms.net
Capitalism and Communism are both gay and cruel. Has Distributism ever actually been tried? Seems like making it illegal for one company to buy another would solve alot of issues.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Like with regular post modernist drivel, unless you can actually suggest a sane and practical alternative then STFU. It's easy to find events of banks mismanaging other people's money or abusing their power, but in the end of the day people prefer having a big centralized body that at least looks like it tries to make the economy stable and make informed decisions of who deserves to get a loan and is likely able to not default on it.
 

TheProdigalStunna

I just wanna blend for God's sake
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Like with regular post modernist drivel, unless you can actually suggest a sane and practical alternative then STFU. It's easy to find events of banks mismanaging other people's money or abusing their power, but in the end of the day people prefer having a big centralized body that at least looks like it tries to make the economy stable and make informed decisions of who deserves to get a loan and is likely able to not default on it.
There have been alternatives. Pointing out that interest is not a fixed immutable property of society is not post modernist drivel.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
There have been alternatives. Pointing out that interest is not a fixed immutable property of society is not post modernist drivel.
First of all, outline the alternatives rather than just put multiple links without any context and expect me to do the leg work for you.
Second, the alternatives themselves are shit. Most of them are archaic systems that are just circumventing direct interest and are as corrupt as regular banking.
Only the last one is a valid sounding alternative, and it depends on a very complicated system and is limited to rich countries with a population that is more educated on average. I wonder why's that?

In the end, if there's a good alternative to interest loaning then where is it? Why didn't it take off? The answer is that, if you give money to a guy who starts a business then you want to make sure it comes back in some form to make up for loss from people who will default on the payment (including the original loaner) so you wouldn't be in a net loss.

Also, "starting a discussion" about a western world trademark without any actual viable alternative, hoping the guy using you as a useful idiot won't make a far worse system, is 100% post modernism.
 

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
Usury is necessary because of inflation, and because there is no incentive to lend money without profit.
How about investing instead of giving a loan. Working and saving to start a business. Usuary is not productive for society and is parasitical in nature. Especially without periodic debt forgiveness.

How do people living in 2020, seeing the financial state of the world continue to support and not question the things that got us here. Usuary enables rent seeking behavior which is awful for society.

W/e it's on it's way to crash and continue to crash as long as the rules(usary) remain the same. Hopefully the lessons we already learned will be learned again. Either get rid of usuary of have periodic debt forgiveness for everyone. Otherwise banksters and moneylenders and up with everything. That's bad.


Thank you OP for the book!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ralph from Chicago

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
How about investing instead of giving a loan. Working and saving to start a business. Usuary is not productive for society and is parasitical in nature. Especially without periodic debt forgiveness.
This is just a variation of "build your own Facebook" argument. Being able to be recieve a loan is one of the few ways for a normal person to actually start a business without wasting most of his life saving up or roping in friends and family, which if anything is likely to end worse for everyone than a loan.

If I'd need to criticize anything in the modern day economics it's regulation and consumerism, which are respectively the main cause in lack of progression (by letting monopolies write the rules of the game to fuck small competitors) and spiritual emptiness (by replacing family and community with toys for adult children).
 

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
This is just a variation of "build your own Facebook" argument. Being able to be recieve a loan is one of the few ways for a normal person to actually start a business without wasting most of his life saving up or roping in friends and family, which if anything is likely to end worse for everyone than a loan.

If I'd need to criticize anything in the modern day economics it's regulation and consumerism, which are respectively the main cause in lack of progression (by letting monopolies write the rules of the game to fuck small competitors) and spiritual emptiness (by replacing family and community with toys for adult children).
What?!?! Its the opposite of build your own Facebook. What are you talking about? And you ignored the end. You get rid of usary or you have massive periodic debt forgiveness. Theres a reason this shit was made illegal and considered a sin. Its effects are negative.

And what you are criticizing is enabled by usuary! Without Usary you dont have companies building monopolies they cannot afford by taking massive loans out like we do today. You think a company having over 70% of its revenue in debt on the books is healthy? It's absolutely terrible and pretty much every corporation has massive amounts of debt on its books. It's a house made of cards that will crash and take everything with it.

Seriously.. how do people still defend this in 2020.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
What?!?! Its the opposite of build your own Facebook. What are you talking about? And you ignored the end. You get rid of usary or you have massive periodic debt forgiveness. Theres a reason this shit was made illegal and considered a sin. Its effects are negative.

And what you are criticizing is enabled by usuary! Without Usary you dont have companies building monopolies they cannot afford by taking massive loans out like we do today. You think a company having over 70% of its revenue in debt on the books is healthy? It's absolutely terrible and pretty much every corporation has massive amounts of debt on its books. It's a house made of cards that will crash and take everything with it.

Seriously.. how do people still defend this in 2020.
Oh yeah. people 2000 years ago had a great understanding of large scale economics and so they made a very informed decision in forbidding usury.

Monopolies will exist with or without usury. Even during medieval times there were incredibly wealthy and powerful aristocraties, merchants and clergy. The big difference is without usury you need to either be connected or suck up to someone rich to even have a starting funds for business, nevermind the fact that an economic hit will impact small businesses who can't get a loan far more than a large corporation with plenty of reserved money.

Now if I'm wrong please enlighten me how I could start an expensive business venture in an economy without usury (for example, opening a factory). How could I get the money if it's far more than I could realistically come up with in decades of work? How could I compete with a business rival who's from a rich family?
 

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
Oh yeah. people 2000 years ago had a great understanding of large scale economics and so they made a very informed decision in forbidding usury.

Monopolies will exist with or without usury. Even during medieval times there were incredibly wealthy and powerful aristocraties, merchants and clergy. The big difference is without usury you need to either be connected or suck up to someone rich to even have a starting funds for business, nevermind the fact that an economic hit will impact small businesses who can't get a loan far more than a large corporation with plenty of reserved money.

Now if I'm wrong please enlighten me how I could start an expensive business venture in an economy without usury (for example, opening a factory). How could I get the money if it's far more than I could realistically come up with in decades of work? How could I compete with a business rival who's from a rich family?
You either a) work and save up for the money or b) you find an investment partner who invests in the factory instead of giving you a loan. C) you start small and expand over time within your means. This isn't complicated to understand The loan is the problem not the gathering of capital. It's a better situation for you and society in the long run. The negative effects of usary are not worth the short term benefits you get.

As I said, its 2020 we have tried usary and it fails every time. Debt begets more debt until everything collapses on itself. We are living in that time now. W/e read the book or don't. What's going to happen is going to happen and hopefully the people rebuilding this shit show won't repeat the usary mistake.

Edit: Why you think usary which did not work on the microscale which is why it was banned would work on a macro scale is beyond me. It was banned because it collapses on a microscale. Making it macro only forstalls the collapse and makes it larger with higher impact.
 
Last edited:

Baguette Child

so tender and mild
kiwifarms.net
If you honestly believe that the workers are not entitled to the products of their own labor,
Lmao bitch you actually think communism gives a shit about the workers?


Workers are just the drones used to replace one elite caste with a new elite caste, look at literally any country east of Germany to see all the "good" Communism did for the workers of the world in practice.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
You either a) work and save up for the money or b) you find an investment partner who invests in the factory instead of giving you a loan. C) you start small and expand over time within your means. This isn't complicated to understand The loan is the problem not the gathering of capital. It's a better situation for you and society in the long run. The negative effects of usary are not worth the short term benefits you get.

As I said, its 2020 we have tried usary and it fails every time. Debt begets more debt until everything collapses on itself. We are living in that time now. W/e read the book or don't. What's going to happen is going to happen and hopefully the people rebuilding this shit show won't repeat the usary mistake.

Edit: Why you think usary which did not work on the microscale which is why it was banned would work on a macro scale is beyond me. It was banned because it collapses on a microscale. Making it macro only forstalls the collapse and makes it larger with higher impact.
a) Not applicable for the example.
c) Not applicable for the example.
b) How is 'giving a person with a lot of money stakes in your work without him contributing to it in any way' that different? You still need to suck the cock of a rich person to succeed and that rich person is likely to become only richer because he is in a better bartering position than you and has to do far less work. And if you wanna say "loan forgiveness" then why the fuck would he give you money to begin with?

When exactly did usury fail? Now or in the past? Last I heard the western countries are still functioning for the last few decades, if anything it's the commie countries getting wrecked economically. Heck, even pointing the finger at one thing being the sole reason for an economic collapse is incredibly retarded.

Jesus christ there wasn't even a macro scale back then so the argument is false. You can point out problems with usury in a small communities but that's not the case anymore, with the banks being huge entities rather than a single baron who can write the rules as he goes along.
 

Ralph from Chicago

Unions are the answer to everything
kiwifarms.net
Like with regular post modernist drivel, unless you can actually suggest a sane and practical alternative then STFU.
Did you read the book? Federal reserve banks, like most central banks, are private corporations which Congress has given authority over producing American money. The federal reserve bank then loans that money to the other banks and the government at interest. So this year, the federal government (we tax payers) pay $436,840,933,935.98 to these bankers as interest on our debt. They are taking this from you.

It's simple, state control over money supply. The federal government produce our money and lend it out without interest.

I've never heard a post-modernist ever discuss monetary policy. This isn't some language game, learn how money works.

Now if I'm wrong please enlighten me how I could start an expensive business venture in an economy without usury (for example, opening a factory). How could I get the money if it's far more than I could realistically come up with in decades of work?
THE STATE CREATES THE MONEY AND LOANS IT WITHOUT INTEREST.

Hang the Bankers.
 
Last edited:

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Did you read the book? Federal reserve banks, like most central banks, are private corporations which Congress has given authority over producing American money. The federal reserve bank then loans that money to the other banks and the government at interest. So this year, the federal government (we tax payers) pay $436,840,933,935.98 to these bankers as interest on our debt. They are taking this from you.

It's simple, state control over money supply. The federal government produce our money and lend it out without interest.

I've never heard a post-modernist ever discuss monetary policy. This isn't some language game, learn how money works.


THE STATE CREATES THE MONEY AND LOANS IT WITHOUT INTEREST.

Hang the Bankers.
View attachment 1549311
I don't know what it worse, the idea that letting the government do something instead of a private body with the expectation that it won't be far more costly, corrupt and politically biased. Or the idea that the government should loan money without any way of cutting cost in case someone defaults on it.

As someone who lives in a country with an cultural ministry that has a budget of movies to fund, I can tell you what happens when there is no need of payback - The only films that get the budget are shitty artistic leftist films that no one in the country watches, with the sole goal of getting praise at some euroshit film festival.

So your grand vision will almost assuredly end with huge amount of the country budget going to fat black women to open businesses that will never turn a profit. But hey, evil bankers.
 

BrownPhillip

"Slap her in the face with it"
kiwifarms.net
I don't know what it worse, the idea that letting the government do something instead of a private body with the expectation that it won't be far more costly, corrupt and politically biased. Or the idea that the government should loan money without any way of cutting cost in case someone defaults on it.

As someone who lives in a country with an cultural ministry that has a budget of movies to fund, I can tell you what happens when there is no need of payback - The only films that get the budget are shitty artistic leftist films that no one in the country watches, with the sole goal of getting praise at some euroshit film festival.

So your grand vision will almost assuredly end with huge amount of the country budget going to fat black women to open businesses that will never turn a profit. But hey, evil bankers.
Sheiiit.
My country's ministry of culture only finances shitty, shallow and cheap movies. All to sell movie tickets to the drooling retards that comprise the masses.
I bet our situation is similar to the (fuck the individual, bailout corpotations) USA.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Sheiiit.
My country's ministry of culture only finances shitty, shallow and cheap movies. All to sell movie tickets to the drooling retards that comprise the masses.
I bet our situation is similar to the (fuck the individual, bailout corpotations) USA.
I don't know, if the films are actually seen by the people that pay for them then that's already a step at the right direction. Also wasn't Cuties payed by French tax money?

And I didn't even mention how corporations will abuse the shit of interest free government loans.
 

Ralph from Chicago

Unions are the answer to everything
kiwifarms.net
Starting to find some spurious attribution. Not a good sign for our author.
20200831_173048.jpg20200831_173020.jpg20200831_173008.jpg
Then go see actual letter sent to Major John Cartwright June 5th 1824 and .... that quote is nowhere to be found.

Seems to be a pretty common mis-quote and almost an amalgam of other Jefferson letters. So Jefferson could have believed something similiar but citing a letter that doesn't mention the word "bank" does not fill me with confidence.
20200831_180009.jpg
20200831_175934.jpg
Weird using a secondary source for a quotation, let's go look at that.
Screenshot_20200831-180340_Drive.jpg

And it does have that quote with .... no source. Seems to be another common misquote.
Screenshot_20200831-180056.jpg
Strike two.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Ralph from Chicago

Unions are the answer to everything
kiwifarms.net
Starting to find some spurious attribution. Not a good sign for our author.
Then go see actual letter sent to Major John Cartwright June 5th 1824 and .... that quote is nowhere to be found.

Seems to be a pretty common mis-quote and almost an amalgam of other Jefferson letters. So Jefferson could have believed something similiar but citing a letter that doesn't mention the word "bank" does not fill me with confidence.
Weird using a secondary source for a quotation, let's go look at that.
View attachment 1562926
And it does have that quote with .... no source. Seems to be another common misquote.
View attachment 1562931
Strike two.
My third strike is less conclusive but hear me out. While talking about the amazing labor relations of tsarist Russia the author says
20200831_182742.jpg
20200831_182751.jpg
20200831_182803.jpg
Which the author relies on a single secondary source as citation for a quote from a US President.
Screenshot_20200831-182606.jpg

Despite extensive online searching, I could find no online sources demonstrating Taft ever said this. The only instances of that quote online are people citing the author Stephen Goodson.

But this stuff about the tsarist labor movement is not true. Imperial Russia was not good for workers. Strikes were a wide spread phenomenon. 1905 Bloody Sunday the tsar's soldiers shot down unarmed workers marching to deliver a petition to his winter palace. Yes in 1906 workers won the right to organize, but that alone does not solve 11 hour work days or a series of general strikes overnight.

The Struggle for World Power, Revolution, and Counter-Revolution is unavailable as an Ebook and I'm not buying it to check a quote. But I do not beilieve that by Taft's presidency in 1909 Imperial Russia became this wonderful perfect world for workers that Goodson quotes.

The fact that this quote does not appear anywhere else on the internet and that if Taft did say this he would have been dead wrong is enough for me to call, Strike three.
 
Tags
None