Central banking doesn't do that, fiat currency does that. A central bank would work fine if the gold standard was still in effect.
EDIT: You people really need to get a grip on the distinctions between banks, lenders, and minters. The entire problem is that one entity does all of that instead of it being three separate entities.
No, because a central bank eliminates free-market competition. What happens if the central bank runs out of gold? It's a monopoly fully in control of your finances.
Before you had multiple independent banks, each issuing their own banknotes.
What happens if the central bank runs out of gold?
You're not spending gold, you're keeping the gold under lock and key. That's the entire point of representational currency. The total currency represents the total gold holdings. If a dollar represents 1/1000th of an ounce of gold, then new dollars can't represent more or less than that and you prevent inflation. The only way inflation occurs is through an official revaluation, which would quite literally cause a revolt. But since fiat currency just slowly devalues over time, people don't notice it because it's boiled frog syndrome.
A central bank tied to a gold standard with no control over the currency supply would simply be what the name states, a Federal Reserve. A place where the object of value representing the money supply is stored and where people can put their own currency/gold for safekeeping.
You have to separate the concepts of a bank, a mint, and a moneylender. There are three different things that really shouldn't have anything to do with each other because that's how all this shit turns into the mess it is today.
Do you really think we would have seen the 2008 crash if banks were only allowed to lend money from their own assets and not lend from assets you store with them? Banks lend your money to other people, then give you someone else's money when you tell them you want yours back. That's not the function of a bank, that's a shell game. A bank's business model should be limited to holding things securely and charging their customers for that security. Making a profit by lending that money out to other people is outright ridiculous and is frankly theft when you think about it, but we just think it's a perfectly normal business practice.
If a central bank existed to fulfill the need for secure holdings and only that function, it wouldn't be a problem at all. That's an ideal world that doesn't exist, unfortunately, but I'm not going to denigrate Hamilton for thinking it was a good idea. All of the founders were idealists. If they weren't, they would have never been able to even envision the concept of a free people.
You're not describing what Hamilton wanted, nor the reality of what central banks are. You're talking about something you'd like, I might agree, and it might work.
It's never been the reality though.
Neither have you touched upon the nature of the problem: how is money created under our system that's existed since 1913? This is VITALLY important, because it crashing down all around us is what this year has been, and is at least as important as the election fraud that correctly has our attention.
This was an interesting read for me. Though I still think having more than one bank is a good idea. In what way would a central bank with these limited powers/function be better than an array of unrelated banks with the same powers/functions? Is the monopolistic aspect of a central bank not exactly what allows it to spin off into all these other behaviors? Wouldn’t a bank and currency abiding by a gold standard be more desirable than one that doesn’t?
Do you really think we would have seen the 2008 crash if banks were only allowed to lend money from their own assets and not lend from assets you store with them?
Yes. because the moment moment banks went fractionally , there was no turning back. And not amount of LAWS will ever change that.
Proof stands exactly the 2008 crash. More precisely the BAILOUTS and all the reactions to it.
I think a central bank would be viable for a monarchy, where the king/emperor is meant to have a good degree of power. Since a monarchy is effectively privatized, it should be reasonably efficient.
Even then, it could be used to screw over the common man, at least it would be for the benefit of the state rather than just bankers.
For a republic, I don't trust the state to keep people's gold safe.
Actually trusting anyone else to keep your gold safe is a pretty bad idea. Keeping your gold in the bank during renaissance Italy could end very badly for you. Song China (gold stored in state depositories) was a bit better I guess. Unless of course, you get a Mongol invasion.
Central bank is unconstitutional. See -> Article 1 Section 8. CONGRESS shall control the money supply. Not a central banking cabal full of traitors who profit off both sides of the wars and our government putting us further in debt.
It's beyond legal and illegal. Were the articles of confederation "legal"? No. There were some loudmouths and some public votes and some folks redrawing legal boundaries. It's above law. "Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."
Just as food is a higher priority than friendships, economy is more substantial than polity. Part of the revolutionary war was over forcing colonists to use British pounds instead of colonial scrip. You don't read about that in the cross-tech media, which includes all major schoolbook publishers. About how that impoverished people and pissed them off. How important it was to general prosperity.
Point is, law isn't real. People and penalties are real. Pieces of paper can't defend our freedoms, or our rights. But together we can.
Alexander Hamilton sucks, to put it succinctly. Thomas Jefferson is a national treasure!
“Unjust weight and measures are an abomination to God!”
Central banking promotes the distortion of the measure of money through inflation and bail outs for bankers
Central banking doesn't do that, fiat currency does that. A central bank would work fine if the gold standard was still in effect.
EDIT: You people really need to get a grip on the distinctions between banks, lenders, and minters. The entire problem is that one entity does all of that instead of it being three separate entities.
No, because a central bank eliminates free-market competition. What happens if the central bank runs out of gold? It's a monopoly fully in control of your finances.
Before you had multiple independent banks, each issuing their own banknotes.
You're not spending gold, you're keeping the gold under lock and key. That's the entire point of representational currency. The total currency represents the total gold holdings. If a dollar represents 1/1000th of an ounce of gold, then new dollars can't represent more or less than that and you prevent inflation. The only way inflation occurs is through an official revaluation, which would quite literally cause a revolt. But since fiat currency just slowly devalues over time, people don't notice it because it's boiled frog syndrome.
A central bank tied to a gold standard with no control over the currency supply would simply be what the name states, a Federal Reserve. A place where the object of value representing the money supply is stored and where people can put their own currency/gold for safekeeping.
You have to separate the concepts of a bank, a mint, and a moneylender. There are three different things that really shouldn't have anything to do with each other because that's how all this shit turns into the mess it is today.
Do you really think we would have seen the 2008 crash if banks were only allowed to lend money from their own assets and not lend from assets you store with them? Banks lend your money to other people, then give you someone else's money when you tell them you want yours back. That's not the function of a bank, that's a shell game. A bank's business model should be limited to holding things securely and charging their customers for that security. Making a profit by lending that money out to other people is outright ridiculous and is frankly theft when you think about it, but we just think it's a perfectly normal business practice.
If a central bank existed to fulfill the need for secure holdings and only that function, it wouldn't be a problem at all. That's an ideal world that doesn't exist, unfortunately, but I'm not going to denigrate Hamilton for thinking it was a good idea. All of the founders were idealists. If they weren't, they would have never been able to even envision the concept of a free people.
You're not describing what Hamilton wanted, nor the reality of what central banks are. You're talking about something you'd like, I might agree, and it might work.
It's never been the reality though.
Neither have you touched upon the nature of the problem: how is money created under our system that's existed since 1913? This is VITALLY important, because it crashing down all around us is what this year has been, and is at least as important as the election fraud that correctly has our attention.
This was an interesting read for me. Though I still think having more than one bank is a good idea. In what way would a central bank with these limited powers/function be better than an array of unrelated banks with the same powers/functions? Is the monopolistic aspect of a central bank not exactly what allows it to spin off into all these other behaviors? Wouldn’t a bank and currency abiding by a gold standard be more desirable than one that doesn’t?
Yes. because the moment moment banks went fractionally , there was no turning back. And not amount of LAWS will ever change that. Proof stands exactly the 2008 crash. More precisely the BAILOUTS and all the reactions to it.
I think a central bank would be viable for a monarchy, where the king/emperor is meant to have a good degree of power. Since a monarchy is effectively privatized, it should be reasonably efficient.
Even then, it could be used to screw over the common man, at least it would be for the benefit of the state rather than just bankers.
For a republic, I don't trust the state to keep people's gold safe.
Actually trusting anyone else to keep your gold safe is a pretty bad idea. Keeping your gold in the bank during renaissance Italy could end very badly for you. Song China (gold stored in state depositories) was a bit better I guess. Unless of course, you get a Mongol invasion.
Central bank is unconstitutional. See -> Article 1 Section 8. CONGRESS shall control the money supply. Not a central banking cabal full of traitors who profit off both sides of the wars and our government putting us further in debt.
Fuck the Fed reserve bank cartel. It is asshoe
It was illegal in every way from day 1.
It's beyond legal and illegal. Were the articles of confederation "legal"? No. There were some loudmouths and some public votes and some folks redrawing legal boundaries. It's above law. "Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."
Just as food is a higher priority than friendships, economy is more substantial than polity. Part of the revolutionary war was over forcing colonists to use British pounds instead of colonial scrip. You don't read about that in the cross-tech media, which includes all major schoolbook publishers. About how that impoverished people and pissed them off. How important it was to general prosperity.
Point is, law isn't real. People and penalties are real. Pieces of paper can't defend our freedoms, or our rights. But together we can.
Central Bank isn't uncosntitutional, but the Federal Reserve as it exists definitely is.
A Central Bank, serving only a s a bank, wouldn't have control of the money supply, they would simply be a repository.
No ... it did not work great.
Would. I said would, and if. Neither of those things are true, so what actually happened isn't what I'm talking about, is it?
Reading comprehension, man.
WE had a central BANK when THE GOLD STANDARD WAS STILL IN EFFECT. WE DROPPED IT. BECAUSE WE WERE GOING BUST.
IMBECILE.
It immediately turned us all into debt slaves, in 1913. According to plan.
well being a gold slave makes 0 difference.