4
0

Why does any country need a central bank?


 invite response                
2022 Oct 16, 10:06pm   10,697 views  55 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (60)   💰tip   ignore  

I don't see the need for a central bank if a country simply uses silver and gold by weight as currency.

There are a few small countries without central banks:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-without-central-banks

Andorra
Isle of Man
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Monaco
Nauru
Palau
Panama
Tuvalu

Panama is the largest of those and simply uses the US dollar. So why couldn't it just use silver instead, and price gold in terms of silver? All countries would of course accept payment in silver or gold, so there's no problem of convertibility.

Eliminating central banks would eliminate almost all inflation, and prevent central bank corruption, such as tipping off friends to upcoming interest rate moves.

The above article is also interesting in that it says that the Rothschilds were essentially the unappointed but de facto central bank of many countries in the 1800's:


The Rothschild banking empire: The predecessors (but not secret controllers) of central banks

In the 1760s, a Jewish banker from Frankfurt, Germany named Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded what would eventually become a banking dynasty. From humble beginnings in the Jewish slums of Frankfurt, Rothschild would eventually establish banks in Frankfurt, Germany; London, England; Paris, France; Vienna, Austria; and Naples, Italy, with each bank headed by one of Rothschild's five sons. The family became known as pioneers and trendsetters in the realm of international finance, and were instrumental in aiding England and its allies during the Napoleonic wars of 1803-1815. At one point in the 1800s, the Rothschild family possessed the largest private fortune in the history of the modern world. For example, between 1895 and 1907, they loaned more than $450,000,000 USD (more than $13 trillion USD by 2022 standards) to various European governments.

Given their immense wealth and power, it's unsurprising that the Rothschild family was the subject of many conspiracy theories. One such claim maintained that the family secretly controlled the world's wealth and financial institutions, including the central banks of various countries. No evidence exists to support this claim, although significant evidence exists that it is a myth rooted in and fueled by anti-Semitism.

In reality, central banks are essentially a government function. As such, they would not be subject to control from a private family—even one as influential as the Rothschilds. In the 18th and 19th centuries, however, many countries had not yet established central banks, so the Rothschild banks fulfilled many of the functions that a central bank now carries out. Today, the Rothschild family is involved in financial services, real estate, nonprofit organizations, winemaking, and other fields.

« First        Comments 34 - 55 of 55        Search these comments

34   Patrick   2023 Mar 4, 5:30pm  

I agree, except that I think the standard should be silver instead of gold, for several reasons:

- silver is much more available
- the silver supply grows faster than the gold supply, ensuring that it can keep up with demand
- gold can be priced in terms of silver
- the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

So we should have only two forms of currency:

1. silver metal coins, which never default
2. promises of silver metal coins, which may default and must be clearly marked as having that risk

Gold is fine, but it's just too confusing to have two metals independent of each other. If you are doing a large transaction, it's fine to do it with gold at the current price of gold coins in silver.

Note that promises of metal can actually be worth more than the physical metal, as happened with the Amsterdam Wisselbank, which had a perfect record for centuries before finally defaulting. People prefer the convenience of the paper promise if they are absolutely sure the promise will be honored on demand, every single time.
35   GNL   2023 Mar 4, 6:02pm  

Patrick says

the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?
36   richwicks   2023 Mar 4, 6:07pm  

GNL says

Patrick says


the US Constitution itself says in Section 10, “no state…shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Only Congress can coin money, and it can only be in terms of gold and silver.
37   Robert Sproul   2023 Mar 5, 7:17am  

Patrick says





None of these countries, undergoing the extremely painful process of losing their Reserve Currency Status, had our entitled narcissistic 'Democracy', DEI military, and NUCLEAR ARSENAL....
We gonna pitch a fit.
38   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 5, 10:56am  

GNL says

What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-10th Amendment

cisTits says

Nope. It just says Congress has that power, but doesn't say/restrict how Congress may implement it.

And the FEDERAL government is not restricted to gold and silver, either.


Again, see above.
39   komputodo   2023 Mar 5, 11:01am  

to finance wars
40   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 6, 8:59am  

If that's true, then the 10th amendment is meaningless. Either the government cannot do it unless it's already specified in the Constitution, or they can do whatever they fuck they want. The power to coin money was given to the states, and when this document was written(context), the states held all the power, the feds held almost none.

Seems you're in the whatever-the-fuck-they want camp. Congrats on the shitfest that is modern America...
41   Eric Holder   2023 Mar 6, 11:56am  

Patrick says

The above article is also interesting in that it says that the Rothschilds were essentially the unappointed but de facto central bank of many countries in the 1800's


Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.
42   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 6, 1:12pm  

Eric Holder says

Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.


And if you say no to both, they assassinate you, and get someone in who says yes.
43   Patrick   2023 Mar 6, 1:28pm  

Like Ghaddafi, who tried to issue a gold dinar.

Also, central banks fight each other. One analysis of Iraq was that Saddam was dumping the US dollar and taking Euros for oil instead. That's why he had to die.
44   AmericanKulak   2023 Mar 6, 2:19pm  

This is the agency/bureaucracy problem we're having, I don't think the Founders anticipated it.

Can Congress delegate authority to bureaucracies that can make additional rules without Congressional approval?

I think the answer is a resounding "NO".
45   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 6, 3:46pm  

cisTits says

No. I am on the camp of ppl who actually read the Constitution.

I don't know what trip you're on.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C5-1/ALDE_00001066/

[The Congress shall have Power . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .]


Where's the section about paper? Coin always, always means metal, nothing else. In fact the word money itself has historically always referred to metal, nothing else. Fiat currency has always been issued by central banks, never by governments directly. So in advocating that paper money is legal you have circumvented the 10th.
46   Patrick   2023 Mar 6, 4:00pm  

Until fairly recently, all US dollars were in theory redeemably for silver metal that was in theory actually being held in the treasury:


47   Patrick   2023 Mar 6, 4:34pm  

cisTits says

To coin Money


Nuttboxer has a point in that it says "to coin money".

As in, coins.
48   Patrick   2023 Mar 6, 5:16pm  

I think coin means coin.
49   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 7, 9:15am  

I looked up the definition of coin, apparently you didn't. And again, if you use context, the states had all the power at this time, and federal government had almost none. Your interpretation is based on the shift that happened post Civil War, after the Constitution was written. And again, the word money has been recognized as gold and silver coin since the beginning of economics, over 2,000 years.

We have a tendency to think things only exist in the context we live in, but history tells a very different story about money than the propaganda pushed today.

Your source is congress.gov. Governments don't take stances that limit or require them to give back power, ever. Try reading an unbiased source, like Griffin. A bit more than the page or so in your link, but worth the time.

If you advocate fiat is legal, you support everything corrupt about our country. Because again, the purpose of a central bank is to deceive and destroy. And they're very good at it.
50   Eric Holder   2023 Mar 7, 12:29pm  

NuttBoxer says


Eric Holder says


Kinda anwers your question, no? Either a country has its own central bank, or some Rotchschild from somewhere else will act as a de-facto one.


And if you say no to both, they assassinate you, and get someone in who says yes.



Nah, you can't say no to both. If your country has no central bank some foreign entity will act as a de-facto one, as Rotchschild example above shows. If you're Panama and your currency is USD - boom, the Fed is your central bank.
51   richwicks   2023 Mar 7, 2:10pm  

cisTits says

No, it doesn't. Never did. Didn't then. Didn't when the Brit Parliament issued paper bills before US was established and SCOTUS etc.


This is why there was a revolutionary war against the British. It wasn't over a tea tax, it was because the British central bank was printing currency and using that to purchase anything they wanted from the colonies, without actually producing anything useful in exchange for it.

That's the REAL reason for the US revolutionary war.

We're all taught total bullshit about history, and we keep making the same "mistakes" of history, because we're not taught history.
53   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 11, 5:11pm  

Eric Holder says

Nah, you can't say no to both.


See Libya, Tanzania, and our good man Andrew above. Now the powder was wet for Andrew, but they did try.
54   fdhfoiehfeoi   2023 Mar 11, 5:23pm  

cisTits says

Look up the definition of misdemeanor, too.

Not the same as what is meant by High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Constitution, either.

You're entitled to your own bullshit. You are not entitled to passing it off as factual reality.

Yet that is what you are trying to do.


There's no grey area when it comes to what constitutes coin. The fact that you have bought that lie shows why central banking economies last as long as they do. They're very good at getting people to believe their propaganda.

Just because it seems like everyone says the shots will save you, didn't mean they would. Just because a lot of people believe economics only works with paper, and routinely gut the 10th, doesn't make you right.

You are just as cucked as the Russian haters, the shot takers, and the mask wearers. It's just that the guy reaming your wife every night told you the right lie first. That's how they get all of us. And when you pout and rage about being bamboozled, remember, you're just like the all black wearing, pink haired Portland/Seattle freaks. Intolerant, and wrong.

« First        Comments 34 - 55 of 55        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste