Had we followed the original bank bailout...

[GG]

How about for once you come up with some facts. I've yet to actually see you do anything but challenge people with vague opinions.

 

And then go ahead and forward me some of the chain mail's I'm supposedly plagiarizing. I'd like to see one.

 

Which facts are you exactly waiting for?

 

And exactly what else are banks supposed to do with their reserves, if not lend it out? I'm sure you have a better system that's been proven to work.

 

As for the email chain, let me guess, was it this?

[Booster4324]

 

Did I miss something by not logging into GLB?

 

It was actually in the third and fourth seasons. VA asked me to share info about the game with him and I did. He promised to return the favor. He didn't. You know Gwen and I had a lot of the early info because we were on so many teams.

 

So the next season he asks again so I asked for an invite to his forums. Sure enough there is the advice I gave them last season. So I gave a bit this time to see if they would bother to be helpful. Still nothing. He approached me mind you and promised to share info. I asked if he, Ramius, and AD would help crunch some of the numbers. Told by VA, sure no problem. Never happened. Thankfully, I only gave them info about FF scripts this time. That was common knowledge shortly (and nary a mention of it on their board at the time). I held some back.

 

It is one thing to mess with someone on a message board, but people spend time and money on an MMO. I got that info because I spent so much time. It wasn't free. Oddly, when someone gives their word, I expect them to keep it.

 

I can totally see how AD wouldn't care though. He is the biggest jerk around (whom I oddly agree with a lot of the times) it sorta sets the tone for the board. He acts like an ass, so I am simply following his lead. Oh and blowing off steam because I am sick of users that cannot remember the password they use every day and IT people that do not know how to use the programs they design.

 

Edit - oh and I don't have the GLB PMs anymore of course, but I do have the TBD ones that VA sent. It proves half my story at least. I would be happy to send them to our "objective" moderator.

 

Further edit - I seriously never had, or do have, an issue with you other than political. One PM would have sufficed to let us know that you were afk for a long time. I don't even begrudge you that considering. I am not sure if you remember this, but we kept the guy that lost his house in Texas on the team for over a season (two boostings actually) on the faint hope he would come back. Only one person left the team on bad terms, and there were good reasons for that. Considering we had never even talked together except for Fez, you, and I, I consider that at least decent with one gold trophy and one promotion. You are welcome on our forums, unless you talk politics as no one talks that there.

[Acantha]

Which facts are you exactly waiting for?

 

And exactly what else are banks supposed to do with their reserves, if not lend it out? I'm sure you have a better system that's been proven to work.

 

As for the email chain, let me guess, was it this?

ANY facts would be a start.

 

Banks can lend out money with the permission of owner. These would TIME deposits, and the depositor would understand that there money was no longer in the bank, and they would part of the interest. Demand deposits would stay in the bank, available to depositor any time they wanted. All money would be accounted for.

 

You can look through history (sorry if more than a 100 years or so is as far as you can go back) and see how the banking system can prosper when the inflation of reserve banking is not aloud. You can also go continue in that research, find the times where these same banks decided their profits weren't enough, and instituted fractional reserve, and watch the inevitable collapse (of those individual banks). Then you can watch the same thing happen once governments get involved and legalize fractional reserve while at the same time forcing people to accept the money. Your system has been proven to fail....over and over again. I'm talking Rome, Greece, France, England, Germany; they have all failed. This is only the most recent time, and I'm sure it will happen again. There's no way governments will ever give up the idea of controlling the money supply to get whatever they want.

 

But please, continue to refuse to actually do any research into the matter, as you are so fond of claiming of others. You've talked before about the recessions that took place before the federal reserve was created, but pay no attention to how the prior central banks had a part in those recessions. And even when there wasn't a central bank, banks were creating money they didn't have, and the government was making that currency as legal tender to pay taxes, basically creating the same exact circumstances that you see today. When counterfeiting is backed by the government, it causes monetary and economic collapse on a national level.

 

But again, you'll refuse to back up anything you say with anything other than some mocking retort, in hopes that everyone will assume you know what you're talking about and back down. And it's of absolutely no surprise that once again your answer to me is "Ron Paul!!", even though I have never mentioned him. Even worse is that you don't even make an argument about why he's wrong...you just say his name (or in this case link to story about him) and figure that's enough.

Once again, there's no more point in this. Until you're willing to actually bring something to a conversation there's just no reason to bother. Maybe I'll be stupid enough to play along again someday.

[GG]

ANY facts would be a start.

 

Banks can lend out money with the permission of owner. These would TIME deposits, and the depositor would understand that there money was no longer in the bank, and they would part of the interest. Demand deposits would stay in the bank, available to depositor any time they wanted. All money would be accounted for.

 

You can look through history (sorry if more than a 100 years or so is as far as you can go back) and see how the banking system can prosper when the inflation of reserve banking is not aloud. You can also go continue in that research, find the times where these same banks decided their profits weren't enough, and instituted fractional reserve, and watch the inevitable collapse (of those individual banks). Then you can watch the same thing happen once governments get involved and legalize fractional reserve while at the same time forcing people to accept the money. Your system has been proven to fail....over and over again. I'm talking Rome, Greece, France, England, Germany; they have all failed. This is only the most recent time, and I'm sure it will happen again. There's no way governments will ever give up the idea of controlling the money supply to get whatever they want.

 

But please, continue to refuse to actually do any research into the matter, as you are so fond of claiming of others. You've talked before about the recessions that took place before the federal reserve was created, but pay no attention to how the prior central banks had a part in those recessions. And even when there wasn't a central bank, banks were creating money they didn't have, and the government was making that currency as legal tender to pay taxes, basically creating the same exact circumstances that you see today. When counterfeiting is backed by the government, it causes monetary and economic collapse on a national level.

 

But again, you'll refuse to back up anything you say with anything other than some mocking retort, in hopes that everyone will assume you know what you're talking about and back down. And it's of absolutely no surprise that once again your answer to me is "Ron Paul!!", even though I have never mentioned him. Even worse is that you don't even make an argument about why he's wrong...you just say his name (or in this case link to story about him) and figure that's enough.

Once again, there's no more point in this. Until you're willing to actually bring something to a conversation there's just no reason to bother. Maybe I'll be stupid enough to play along again someday.

 

I have provided facts. You just happen not to like them because they dispute your views.

 

But here we go apologies to the purists. Yes I know it's a wiki link, but it's the most convenient one. Fact is that the past crises were more severe and more frequent. It still boggles my mind that people think that going back to a financial system of 200 years ago is a wise thing.

 

But hey, that's your choice. You can still take your money out of the financial system and live on trading gold or barter like they did in the good old days. No one is stopping you.

 

As for Ron Paul - you didn't have to mention him because your arguments are too transparent. But it's not like he's treading new ground - it's the same tired argument that was brought a century ago to knock down the central bank. Yet somehow people are a lot more comfortable with the concept of a single man (JP Morgan) rescuing the financial system than a government backed central bank.

 

The thing about Paul is that he starts out sounding rational about his concerns of excess and aggressive risk taking, yet then morphs into solutions that would do much more harm than good, because the policies are cooky.

 

You never had a global bank capital system as closely aligned with a libertarian ethos than the one that was being implemented in 2007. You never had a head of a central bank who is more closely aligned with a libertarian ethos than Alan Greenspan. Yet look where we are now.

 

Ron Paulites are blind to the reality that his solution would not fix the main problem that's consistent across all mania - when times are good, people ignore the risk and gorge on the feast. It won't be any different if his "proposals" are put to work. In the meantime, you would stop industry in its tracks, because the world economy has moved beyond the small town banking that he supposedly favors. And then you'll just wait ten years until the small banks fail because they misunderstood the risk and didn't have enough capital, or one small bank decided to get bigger and lost on that bet.

[Acantha]

I have provided facts. You just happen not to like them because they dispute your views.

This post is the first that you have ever tried to bring any type of rational to your opinions. And what do we get? Wiki....nice. But hey, let's look at it.

But here we go apologies to the purists. Yes I know it's a wiki link, but it's the most convenient one. Fact is that the past crises were more severe and more frequent. It still boggles my mind that people think that going back to a financial system of 200 years ago is a wise thing.

The first example shown says:

Panic of 1819, a U.S. recession with bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s first boom-to-bust economic cycle

So let's see, what was happening in 1819? Oh yeah, that would be during the time of the Second Bank of the United States (given a 20 year charter in 1816, and who's notes were accepted by the government for payment of taxes). In less than 2 years the bank had increased the money supply by 46%, and the effects of the inflation were beginning to get out of hand. In 1818 the bank tried to put a check on it by contracting credit and calling in loans, and rapid changes made things worse. Of course government legislation trying to help matters ended up making things worse. 1819 was the beginning of the "War" between Andrew Jackson and the Nicholas Biddle who was the director of the bank. As they were approaching the end of the charter, Biddle drove the economy into a boom like it had never had before, inflating the money supply at will. His attempt to get public favor failed though as people realized what was going on, and Jackson won the war in 1836 and the charter was not renewed (and Biddle was arrested on fraud, something our current directors should be worried about). The second reference of the Wiki article:

Panic of 1837, a U.S. recession with bank failures, followed by a 5-year depression

was the bust cycle resulting from the Second Bank of the United State's actions.

 

I could keep going down the list, but the facts are all there. You continue to only look at the Federal Reserve, and think that everything before that was all sans Central Banking (or central banking standards). But it's just not true. What surprises me is not that there are people who want to go back to a banking system that works, it's that people are so lazy that they can't even take time to see that we have been down this road before.

 

But hey, that's your choice. You can still take your money out of the financial system and live on trading gold or barter like they did in the good old days. No one is stopping you.

No, it's not my choice. Inflation takes that choice away from me. Without using banks, I end up losing money. THAT's the control that they have.

EDIT: And just because I advocate a banking system not designed on fraud, doesn't mean I want to go back the barter system. Not that I'm surprised you say that. Your hyperbole is really the only thing you have going for you. Also leave out the fact that today's technology makes using a standard money easier than it has ever been in the past. Sound banking would be far more efficient with electronic banking than it ever was.

As for Ron Paul

Friggin broken record.

 

You never had a global bank capital system as closely aligned with a libertarian ethos than the one that was being implemented in 2007. You never had a head of a central bank who is more closely aligned with a libertarian ethos than Alan Greenspan. Yet look where we are now.

Once upon a time, Greenspan had libertarian views (like, back in the 50's and 60's). But by the time he was in charge of the Fed, he had spent his time with Morgan and become a good cronie. The policies he put forth in his time there were anything but libertarian. But lets ignore that with everything else, why not?

 

And then you'll just wait ten years until the small banks fail because they misunderstood the risk and didn't have enough capital, or one small bank decided to get bigger and lost on that bet.

Yes, small banks would fail because they would use unsound business practices to get richer. Their clients would flock to them because they were giving out more money and everyone would be getting rich. Then those banks and their customers would fail, and the ones left would be the ones who acted responsibly. And those banks would stand out among the rest. God forbid we allow the honest business's to survive at the expense of the thieves.

[GG]

This post is the first that you have ever tried to bring any type of rational to your opinions. And what do we get? Wiki....nice. But hey, let's look at it.

 

The first example shown says:

 

So let's see, what was happening in 1819? Oh yeah, that would be during the time of the Second Bank of the United States (given a 20 year charter in 1816, and who's notes were accepted by the government for payment of taxes). In less than 2 years the bank had increased the money supply by 46%, and the effects of the inflation were beginning to get out of hand. In 1818 the bank tried to put a check on it by contracting credit and calling in loans, and rapid changes made things worse. Of course government legislation trying to help matters ended up making things worse. 1819 was the beginning of the "War" between Andrew Jackson and the Nicholas Biddle who was the director of the bank. As they were approaching the end of the charter, Biddle drove the economy into a boom like it had never had before, inflating the money supply at will. His attempt to get public favor failed though as people realized what was going on, and Jackson won the war in 1836 and the charter was not renewed (and Biddle was arrested on fraud, something our current directors should be worried about). The second reference of the Wiki article:

 

was the bust cycle resulting from the Second Bank of the United State's actions.

 

I could keep going down the list, but the facts are all there. You continue to only look at the Federal Reserve, and think that everything before that was all sans Central Banking (or central banking standards). But it's just not true. What surprises me is not that there are people who want to go back to a banking system that works, it's that people are so lazy that they can't even take time to see that we have been down this road before.

 

 

No, it's not my choice. Inflation takes that choice away from me. Without using banks, I end up losing money. THAT's the control that they have.

EDIT: And just because I advocate a banking system not designed on fraud, doesn't mean I want to go back the barter system. Not that I'm surprised you say that. Your hyperbole is really the only thing you have going for you. Also leave out the fact that today's technology makes using a standard money easier than it has ever been in the past. Sound banking would be far more efficient with electronic banking than it ever was.

 

Friggin broken record.

 

 

Once upon a time, Greenspan had libertarian views (like, back in the 50's and 60's). But by the time he was in charge of the Fed, he had spent his time with Morgan and become a good cronie. The policies he put forth in his time there were anything but libertarian. But lets ignore that with everything else, why not?

 

 

Yes, small banks would fail because they would use unsound business practices to get richer. Their clients would flock to them because they were giving out more money and everyone would be getting rich. Then those banks and their customers would fail, and the ones left would be the ones who acted responsibly. And those banks would stand out among the rest. God forbid we allow the honest business's to survive at the expense of the thieves.

 

It's surely funny that you accuse me of ignoring facts, yet all I hear from you is the tired soundbites that are a century old. What exactly is a sound banking system in your OWN words. Don't run to the safety of your email list, but repond within minutes on what exactly you mean.

 

If you are so concerned about the legal tender of US currency, what's the alternative? C'mon, give an answer on how you will finance a $13 trillion economy under your financial system.

 

Sorry that you didn't like the wiki reference. Too bad the citations are correct. Google financial panics of the 19th century and you'll see the same answers. Any reason you didn't mention the causes of the other panics in that century, btw? How about what happened in 1907?

 

Also please explain what you mean about inflation? Since we haven't had real inflation in over a generation, and three business cycles, what does that say about the fearmongering.

 

Oh, I know, you have been predicting this for the last 30 years.

[Acantha]

It's surely funny that you accuse me of ignoring facts, yet all I hear from you is the tired soundbites that are a century old. What exactly is a sound banking system in your OWN words. Don't run to the safety of your email list, but repond within minutes on what exactly you mean.

Every time I give an answer you respond with Ron Paul (or something like it), so why bother? Last time you asked for a reference as to what exactly was wrong with the federal reserve, I linked you to an entire book on it, and you ignored it and said Ron Paul, because apparently you saw his name on the page. Forget that the book was written well before anyone knew who Ron Paul was. You give no facts, only reference a time-line of economic downturns, and yet when I give facts about what led to those downturns they are ignored. Why would I continue to do so, when you give no such thought in your arguments?

If you are so concerned about the legal tender of US currency, what's the alternative? C'mon, give an answer on how you will finance a $13 trillion economy under your financial system.

I've already done this, you just choose to ignore it and call it outdated, with no actual reasons to back it up. You're only idea for financing 13 trillion dollar economy is to counterfeit your way out of it. I'm not going to argue against that kind of inane thinking. Especially when you refuse to do any research of your own.

 

Sorry that you didn't like the wiki reference. Too bad the citations are correct. Google financial panics of the 19th century and you'll see the same answers. Any reason you didn't mention the causes of the other panics in that century, btw? How about what happened in 1907?

Because it's not my job to sit here and write a book about how your one link reference page came to be. I didn't argue that the wiki link was wrong, only that the research it took find it took about 10 seconds. I did go through the first two and clearly show they came to be. And as far as I'm aware, there is no email chain letter that describes, in detail, the first few Central Banking charters and how and why they failed. But go ahead and ignore the history. There are plenty of books on the issue that describe the history of our economy and what was going on during those time to cause the downfalls. I'd give you a list, but you'd just reply with "Ron Paul", so why bother?

Also please explain what you mean about inflation? Since we haven't had real inflation in over a generation, and three business cycles, what does that say about the fearmongering.

This makes you an idiot.

 

Oh, I know, you have been predicting this for the last 30 years.

Nope, not 30. I got into economic in the early 90s. Spent the first couple years learning the same tired crap that you're preaching....mercantilism, socialism, spend more, regulate more, print more money. I was turned on to other forms of economics, the different families of scientific economics, around 94/95 or so I'd say. So about 15 years, tops.

 

And now I'm done. I'm done letting you demand me to come up with replies to your nonsense in "minutes". Next time I'll come down to your level and just link to a Wiki article about Ron Paul so that you can find yourself in familiar ground.

[jjamie12]

I was turned on to other forms of economics, the different families of scientific economics, around 94/95 or so I'd say. So about 15 years, tops.

Maybe, just *maybe*, if you'd talk about THIS stuff, how it applies to today's financial mess, and how you would implement or change the current economic situation you'd get more of the discussion that you're looking for. (FYI: Linking to a book isn't the same as having ideas and writing about them.)

[GG]

Every time I give an answer you respond with Ron Paul (or something like it), so why bother? Last time you asked for a reference as to what exactly was wrong with the federal reserve, I linked you to an entire book on it, and you ignored it and said Ron Paul, because apparently you saw his name on the page. Forget that the book was written well before anyone knew who Ron Paul was. You give no facts, only reference a time-line of economic downturns, and yet when I give facts about what led to those downturns they are ignored. Why would I continue to do so, when you give no such thought in your arguments?

 

I've already done this, you just choose to ignore it and call it outdated, with no actual reasons to back it up. You're only idea for financing 13 trillion dollar economy is to counterfeit your way out of it. I'm not going to argue against that kind of inane thinking. Especially when you refuse to do any research of your own.

 

 

Because it's not my job to sit here and write a book about how your one link reference page came to be. I didn't argue that the wiki link was wrong, only that the research it took find it took about 10 seconds. I did go through the first two and clearly show they came to be. And as far as I'm aware, there is no email chain letter that describes, in detail, the first few Central Banking charters and how and why they failed. But go ahead and ignore the history. There are plenty of books on the issue that describe the history of our economy and what was going on during those time to cause the downfalls. I'd give you a list, but you'd just reply with "Ron Paul", so why bother?

 

This makes you an idiot.

 

 

Nope, not 30. I got into economic in the early 90s. Spent the first couple years learning the same tired crap that you're preaching....mercantilism, socialism, spend more, regulate more, print more money. I was turned on to other forms of economics, the different families of scientific economics, around 94/95 or so I'd say. So about 15 years, tops.

 

And now I'm done. I'm done letting you demand me to come up with replies to your nonsense in "minutes". Next time I'll come down to your level and just link to a Wiki article about Ron Paul so that you can find yourself in familiar ground.

 

You just can't move beyond soundbites. What exactly is a counterfeit financial system? Seems to have worked well for 100 years, all the while financing two world wars, a cold war and overtaking Britain as the global reserve currency.

 

You would imagine someone would have discovered the fraud that is the US dollar by now.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

When do we start impeachment proceeding on the current congress and administration on the trillions of dollars them and their PACS are stealing from the American people under the guise of TARP and stimulus.

As long as we can include the last administration and Wall Street, GM and the Sub-Prime Banks and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc, I am all for it. Impeach them All!