« First « Previous Comments 5 - 44 of 55 Next » Last » Search these comments
One might argue that a central bank is needed as the lender of last resort, but perhaps there should be no lender of last resort. Perhaps institutions which get themselves into trouble should simply fail, and the public should be made aware of their potential for failure.
Well yes, the US government wouldn't tolerate it, but economically speaking, I think gold and silver would work just fine for Panama. I don't think it could all be bought up in the first place, and in the second place, prices would re-adjust to whatever level of gold and silver were around.
Now, in this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.
In reality this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, --- - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.
Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of anarchism, an opponent of Marxism, especially of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and for his predictions that Marxist regimes would be one-party dictatorships ruling over the proletariat, not rule by the proletariat.
In the US, we'd quickly have a currency crisis with physical metal because of the ~$1T trade deficit with China Alone.
On the other hand, the outsourcing bullshit would end pretty quick as well. It would become prohibitive to import from China, nobody in the States would be able to gather enough physical metal to import stuff.
The Friedman solution of GDP growth + 0.5-1% issuance would work fine and dandy. You got enough money to match actual growth + a smidge of small inflation to help debtors and encourage best use of capital. This would be locked in by Constitutional Amendment and out of the control of Congress or President; it would happen automatically.
Silver could work, at least domestically, but we wouldn't want it for our massive trade surplus otherwise China would pull a reverse Opioum War and hoard all our minted Silver. So maybe a domestic silver dollar - actual coins.
It would also have to be the law that ALL transactions, including wages and salaries under $2000 (adjusted for CPI/etc.) be paid in the physical. That means the Koch Brothers have to pay their chicken pluckers in Silver Coins, not banknotes for silver.
First, they eliminated the commodity backed currency. Now, they have to eliminate the hand held currency, too.
Well yes, the US government wouldn't tolerate it, but economically speaking, I think gold and silver would work just fine for Panama. I don't think it could all be bought up in the first place, and in the second place, prices would re-adjust to whatever level of gold and silver were around.
North Korea has a central bank?
Why does any country need a central bank?
Griffin lays out a very detailed plan for unwinding our economy from central banking.
They have been selling gold coins since 2009. Now it would be just fixed to a set price and done so tax free.
I mean they will be tempted to stop the convertibility of paper rubles to gold.
Governments love power, and the power to print money is a big power.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
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.
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?
What does the constitution say about the federal government making currency?
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 5 - 44 of 55 Next » Last » Search these comments
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: