As someone with no knowledge of Economics, what is wrong with a private bank, the fed, printing our money...

As someone with no knowledge of Economics, what is wrong with a private bank, the fed, printing our money? how is it any different from the government doing it?

Private banks are fine. However private central banks that literally control money supply and monetary policy are not. To anyone who understands this stuff we've been living under communism for the past 100 years (since the Fed was created).

Crypto currency is our weapon to end (((international banking))).

>private central banks that literally control money supply and monetary policy are not.
Why?
>anyone who understands this stuff we've been living under communism for the past 100 years
How?

central bank is a monopoly, so all the issues that follow a monopoly affect it

Govt doesn't own the money. That is EXACTLY the problem.

Anybody owns the money. That is EXACTLY the problem.

ITS OWNED BY THE JEW AND THE JEW IS A RAT A SUBHUMAN AND UNWORTHY OF THE HONOR THEY HAVE STOLEN FROM WE THE PEOPLE.

you pride yourself on understanding little of what you say, dont you?

Wow, nice retort, faggot.

Watch the documentary "money masters" by bill still and then watch "federal reserve century of enslavement" by Corbett report.

>T. Person who failed highschool econ and wouldn't be able to pass college algebra if his life depended on it

Dudewheresyourargument.png

In case you guys were wondering, just look at these posts. The kikes are literally terrified.

>central banks are not fine
For someone who claims knowledge of economic processes, you have shown none.
In fact, a central bank backed by the Fed is what has allowed such extreme and relatively steady monetary expansion.

hi there rabbi.

Because every dollar they print is on loan to the government

No, monetary policy allows for centralized control and boom and bust cycles that are manipulated by those in power. What's your argument, you stupid faggot? You don't understand how free market systems work.

My argument is that without a central bank to prop up institutions during financial crisis then you get exactly what happened when they created the central back in the first place... Borrowing money from fucking civilians or default

>fractional reserve banking exist without fractional reserve banking

No faggot you got the occasional bank run which was the risk you took when you trust your money to fucking kikes. Banks literally don't matter anymore do some fucking research or enjoy having your purchasing power diminish by the day by bankers who's only role is to boost there bottom line and control government to bail them out with tax payer money.

Banks do matter because they create money through loans, inflating the existing amount of money in the market. So wtf are you talking about

Loans don't create value in a system of inflation. Issuing a loan to someone with interest is your money now x what it will be worth in time + risk. Central banks literally create money out of thin air and lend it to you/government at a premium. Its a fucking scam, how can you not see this?

There is literally nothing wrong with issuing loans to people/credit. THAT IS NOT WHAT CENTRAL BANKING/FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS

PRIVATIZATION IS CODE FOR STEAL FROM TAX PAYERS

That's the fucking point. Value is placed in confidence, not quantity.

Because central banks charge gov'ts interest. When goverments print their own money it's interest free

Your statement does nothing to legitimize banks or fiat money. If anything what you are saying is (when it comes to money) the only commodities that should hold value are scarce, like metals or crypto. Things that no central bank can create, thus their monopoly on money is illegitimate and loans can be issued peer to peer with no central 3rd party, no?

The point is currency manipulation.

How does currency manipulation support your argument for central banking? Literally how? You're backpedaling like a mother fucker, because you're a filthy kike supporting this criminal system and you should end your life.

Nothing to that?

>interest and usury

Currency itself shouldn't have value. Currency is meant to represent actual items of value.

Retards like Ron Paul and Ben Shapiro talk about gold because they're paid by kikes who sell gold. The monetary supply is supposed to be manipulated to accurately represent the value of goods and services. If the US still pegged the dollar to gold, your dollars would have risen over 2000% in value. This is the same reason cryptocurrency is a terrible store of value and no serious institution invests any time or money in it. The extreme fluctuations in the value of bitcoin are exactly why it is a terrible currency. If you did work today and needed to buy a car tomorrow, you wouldn't want your work to suddenly be worth less because of unrelated market dynamics.

>Currency itself shouldn't have value.
You're almost entirely incorrect and even if that is something you want, its called a futures market and you can peg value. This requires no central banking system at all. Make an actual argument or fuck off.

You didn't respond to anything I said.

Before currency was used, people bartered. Items possess disparate value and marginal utility varies highly between individuals, so currency was introduced to more efficiently represent value creation.

The existence of futures does not mean that currency should not have value. It simply means that it is impossible to remove all measure of value from a currency. After all, currency is an abstraction of the value of tangible goods and services. Some currencies are better managed than others. The fact that we trust America more than Zimbabwe does not have any relation to the reality that all systems of currency attempt to reduce the influence of monetary supply on the free market as much as possible.

Central banks should be entrusted with maintaining currency as they are neutral parties to the marketplace. A free market of private currencies cannot possibly attempt to regulate itself. The existence of futures is but one example of the conflict of interest that a producer has in manipulating currency to their benefit. Since the nation is the only meaningful division that cannot easily be broached, it makes the most sense for countries to protect their own monetary interests.

>Why?

Because private banks have profit motives to do what they do, which means they can't be trusted to do anything but to pursue profit.

>not letting banking establishments default

The irony is that after the Fed was conceived, the actual silver bullet to solving these ridiculous problems was invented: The FDIC. Sure, banking establishments, place risky bets all the live long day, but you'll get nothing in assistance from the government when you fail. Meanwhile, insure citizens for deposits up to some reasonable amount of money, say five years' worth of the median national income.

>A free market of private currencies cannot possibly attempt to regulate itself.
It most certainly can, provided those currencies are backed by metal. If fractional reserve is permitted for some reason, there will eventually be an equilibrium reserve ratio that the market will bear, because banks holding reserves below that ratio would be at higher risk of bankruptcy/already have gone bankrupt. Although more likely, a metal-backed system of currencies would not permit fractional reserve, because it is outright fraud.

I never said currency facilitates value creation, currency is only value communication.

Futures are literally used to peg value into the future. Your trust in the asset when pegging isn't a factor. You spawn derivatives for insurance. Its gambling, but not without risk management.

Central banks are not neutral parties, nobody is and they shouldn't be trusted. You're out of your fucking mind.

Currency isn't something that needs to be regulated, its an abstraction as you said. Its entire purpose is to communicate value from one person to another. The less a central body influences or controls what that value means matters.

This doesn't mean national currencies can't exisit, however their influence on global commerce is checked by a trustless system that only abides by consensus rules.

Look up something called the coincidence of wants. Thata’s the fundamental problem that the technology of money solves. Then we can talk about what configures real money: Acceptability, portability, durability, divisibilitu, fundgibility and stability.
Then we can talk about central banks printing money at the behest of government to fund their projects.
Then we can talk about WW1, 2 and 3.

Then you’ll Be gassed with the rest of the kikes. Fuck you, retard.

bump