Seamaiden
Living dead girl
- Posts
- 23,594
- Reactions
- 34,048
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2010
- Points
- 638
Why is this in the Colorado forum...? :?
121,256 growers, practical cultivation threads, real grow diaries, and community advice.
Create account → Already a member? Log inFollow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is this in the Colorado forum...? :?
Why is this in the Colorado forum...? :?
Why is this in the Colorado forum...? :?
You wanna know why Cali is broke? Because Arnold sucked as a Govenor.....because the bleeding heart liberals feel that going green is more important than jobs. Thats why.....
Shit was sucking loooong before the Governator took office. He just got to watch is grow our debt.Yet they say nothing about Prop 23 which IMHO will destroy this State. You wanna know why Cali is broke? Because Arnold sucked as a Govenor.....because the bleeding heart liberals feel that going green is more important than jobs. Thats why.....not because we didn't pass you're beloved Prop 19.
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!
Sorry, I disagree with that. Humans have been using 'money' for millenia, the banking system was thought up hundreds of years ago and DAMN if I want us to go back to, what, bartering? Yeah, let's take a huge step backwards in time and evolution. Not for me, thank you.
Critics of fractional reserve banking claim that since money creation requires loans from the banking system, people are required to go into debt in order for any new money to be created. They assert that this can debase the means of exchange. While there is no controversy over the fact that the commercial banking system expands the money supply, critics find it problematic that banks "create money out of nothing."[citation needed]
Some commentators, like debt-focused critics including Stephen Zarlenga, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, link together fractional-reserve banking, central banking, and government-enforced "paper" or fiat currency as negative features of modern monetary systems. They argue that fiat money and the practice of fractional reserve banking does not impose a natural limit on the growth of the money supply, and that this causes inherently unsustainable bubbles in asset and capital markets, which are vulnerable to speculation.[7][8][9][10][11][12] These commentators often use the term "debt-based monetary system" to refer to an economic system where money is created primarily through fractional-reserve banking techniques, using the banking system.[5]
There are individuals, even within such groups as the Austrian school, that reject the notion that fractional reserve banking is inherently destabilizing and that full-reserve banking is the appropriate solution. One such Austrian thinker, Steven Horwitz, argued that full-reserve banking would impose similar costs of price adjustments in reaction to growth (through a reduction in the overall price level) as would inflation, and hence offer no inherent advantages over fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking.[13]
One argument posits that since debt and the interest on the debt can only be paid in the same form of money, the total debt (principal plus interest) can never be paid in a debt-based monetary system unless more money is created through the same process. For example: if 100 credits are created and loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 credits will be needed to pay the loan and extinguish the debt. However, since the additional 10 credits does not yet exist, it too must be borrowed. This implies that debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent.[11]