Comedy | January 03, 2010 | 55 comments

Is the Dollar a Ponzi Scheme?

source: http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3066

Image
critic
Ponzi scheme - a fraudulent investment operation that returns assets to the defrauded from assets they previously loaned to the scheme’s operators or assets paid by subsequent newer “investors” rather than from any actual profit earned
  1. groups:
    Community,   Comedy,   Not News,   Conspiracy Theory
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Politics,  Government,  Republican,  2 more
  3.     
    |

55 comments // Is the Dollar a Ponzi Scheme?

  • dailyscenario
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  

    • without all the technical babble it's real easy...

      every dollar represents a PERCENTAGE (ergo more dollars printed the smaller they become in value), of all goods owned in the U.S.
      No we are not solely backed by gold. It also includes any goods this country can legitimately export and make PROFIT on, The key is it has to be exportable and profitable. Food, Gems, Metals, Fuels, patented Technologies (which we really don't own anything other countries haven't made better already), well except for pharmaceuticals which is why the feds allow them to get away with murder...LITERALLY

      Part of the problem our country faces:

      I . A lot of the other countries we directly compete with in the world market produce at a higher rate to meet demand which beats quality in the end. Like coal china makes it accessible faster and cheaper than the US. It's the chinese citizens that really pay the price for it. So other countries purchase from china on LOTS of resources before say the US or Russia or UK. It's like the super powers are comparable to Best Buy and China/India are Wal-Mart super centers.
      Everyone wants the most bang for their buck.

      II. The US relied on financial products to compensate for world bank losses rather than actual consumables which is what the local tax money actually relies on like Sales Tax, Income Tax, and everything the FTC can come up with. In plain english....Say you buy a house but you don't pay the home owners cash, instead you pay them with a promise on how much value the house will gain, and once that house gains value u will re-sell it and pay the original owners the quoted value whilst you keep the difference. You then turn around and promise to invest that difference and share a portion of profits over the difference in exchange for allowing you to pay them so late after the original sale. BTW us citizens are the home owners in this example.

      I realize that may seem like a P-scheme but it's actually a scheme the jewish came up with long before called interests. However when it's applied to money the Fed's have to call it something else because it would ought wise be considered illegal in the world market.

      Fun Fact : it costs nearly 7 pennies to print and cut each paper bill.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • Image

    • "If in 1913 the average hourly income was .²º¢ then today the average should be $10.ºº based on the rate of current inflation."

      But what you forget is that at the same time, the economy is growing, added to by the goods and services produced by the exchange of money. It cannot grow for long without the addition of more money, since that would produce a shortage of cash, which would result in DEflation.

      This is what the Fed says about the system of Fractional Reserve Lending:

      The fact that banks are required to keep on hand only a fraction of the funds deposited with them is a function of the banking business. Banks borrow funds from their depositors (those with savings) and in turn lend those funds to the banks’ borrowers (those in need of funds). Banks make money by charging borrowers more for a loan (a higher percentage interest rate) than is paid to depositors for use of their money. If banks did not lend out their available funds after meeting their reserve requirements, depositors might have to pay banks to provide safekeeping services for their money. For the economy and the banking system as a whole, the practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand has an important cumulative effect. Referred to as the fractional reserve system, it permits the banking system to create money.

      Source:

      http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101/fedtoday/FedTodayAll.pdf

      The ability of that system to create money is balanced by the Fed'a ability to restrict that creation using the power they have over those reserve accounts and interest rates.

      Actually, this is the best possible time for the government to borrow huge amounts of money, since those rates are at historic lows.

      I would suggest downloading iTunes and listening to some economic course in iTunes University, you'd have a better understanding of what you are now mangling.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
  • Jesse_Sargent
    • 0
      Jesse_Sargent  

    • Then also you have to figure in the buying power of the dollar, because it's value to Gold, is directly relational and proportional to the value of products to Gold.
      If in 1913 I could buy a coke for .°¹¢ then today it should be bought for .50¢
      Where in reality even after 1913 there were items bought for half a penny, and two for half a penny. So if the cheapest things you can get today cost .25¢ that should give you an idea of how screwed up everything actually is.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jesse_Sargent
    • 0
      Jesse_Sargent  

    • The value of the dollar (like any monetary system) is based on more than one thing. Not just our "faith" in the system and currency, (translator of goods and services) work and production translate into money, but do not define it's value. We expect so much money for our work, but that does not mean that it retains the same value to our employers, nor their net-worth to our Stock market and Government. Nor does your dollar retain its value with the bank, otherwise there would be no inflation.

      The fact is, inflation is cause by SOMETHING, and that is literally the decreased value of the dollar based on the increased surplus of dollars in the overall market. The more dollars there are out there (a ratio of $100.ºº to one bar of Gold VS. $1000.ºº to one bar of Gold when the bars of Gold remain the same size) the less each of them is worth.

      BUT< if the amount you get paid for your time spent at work does not increase in PROPORTION to the rate of inflation then you are being robbed, and you cannot buy as much with your dollar (or work) as you should be able to.. or once could be able to.

      If in 1913 the average hourly income was .²º¢ then today the average should be $10.ºº based on the rate of current inflation.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jesse_Sargent
    • 0
      Jesse_Sargent  

    • The entire system is, from the Governments monetary relationship with the Fed, to the Stock markets and loans all the way down to your locally owned and private banks. The lending is borrowing, and the borrowing lending. The circular references are all a part of a worldwide pyramid funneling system taking the values (hard currency) of our fiat systems and pumping them out so far that it forces our current systems (like the dollar) into such decline that it is more beneficial to create an entire new monetary system over a larger region (like the Euro) thereby bringing larger sectors of the public trust into a system governed by it's monetary systems. The Gold standard was the only way to ensure that people were treated fairly across the board (better diversity of funds, which is what you want: "Change") because Gold is a standard, unlike Fiat currency systems, which rely on "faith". You have faith in the government to NOT do according to political pressures or agendas, and thereby maintain the values of our currency? Or, you have faith in a privately own bank to do so? Even when it is in BOTH of their interests (politically and worldwide monetarily) to take advantage of your unwillingness to believe the truth, that you are being financially RAPED

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
    • 0
      02  

    • There is only one value in money - ONLY ONE - that is: as a translator of goods and services.

      In other words, work and production.

      No production, no value.

      Also, you got to sell a buck's worth of goods for a buck.
      If I'm charging you $100, for ten cents worth of goods, everybody's $100 (including mine) turns into ten cents, just give it a little time.
      That's why this charging more spiral is hurting everyone - because it destroys the money-base itself.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jesse_Sargent
    • 0
      Jesse_Sargent  

    • It is. Based on the fact that money that is lent to the banks (Federal Reserve is privately owned) is lent out many times over and usually to the same people who have lent their money in the form of savings. So, Savings are good yes, it's good to save money in the right way, but savings are bad, because it drives the value of the dollar down the more money is created by this system of false lending (fiat currency). AND the dollar is ACTUALLY worth about 2cents today compared to 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bank was first (and illegally) created.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • No but the federal reserve bank is, producing dollars based on promissory notes printed by the US Government who will reach a point in the not to distant future when all revenue recieved will go to paying the interest only at which point we become bankrupt

    • 2 years ago
  • Ajil
  • bombastinator
  • Maeveeo
    • 0
      Maeveeo  

    • I fine it funny that what use to cost 25 cents ( like lifesavers ) is now 1.00 $ , the dollar is now almost worth 25 cents or less !

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • Maeveeo:

      16 cents in 1963 dollars, or something like that iirc. Of course back then a good salary was 3k a year too. Inflation encourages investment, since if you put your money in a mattress for 20 years it will eventually become close to worthless.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • lionessgrrl
  • CalgarC
  • pmurph364
    • 0
      pmurph364  

    • When Bush led the 700 billion raid on the treasury to reward banker friends and then defined worthless bonds that were a fraud when issued toxic assets that the Government would then buy did away with any possibility that the dollar could retain long term value. It becomes only a tool controlled by a few to rule over the rest.
      The day they did the 700billion bank bailout will no doubt be looked at by future generations as the day the dollar died.

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • pmurph364:

      yes and no, like you i foresee inflation due to the increase in the money supply but when they pay back the loans we should get a return on investment and the money supply should be reduced. I think the bailout was stupid, the losers should have lost. but it gets tricky when you consider the credit crunch. The credit hasn't been relieved enough, but do to how many small business require loans, its hard to imagine it would have been easier without the bailout.

      The bailout hurt people on fixed incomes the most because it will lead to unexpected inflation. which sux. Don't get me wrong the whole situation sucked. I can think of many reasons i wish Barbra would have swallowed the load that seeded him, but this would be about 8th on my list.

    • 2 years ago
  • hammywill
    • 0
      hammywill  

    • Unless you have a DIRECT Democracy (which is NOT the case in the US) then a Fiat Currency system is prone to abuse and control by a default aristocracy.

      Fiat systems aside, Fractional Reserve lending is theft.

      If one has to get a degree in economics from an accredited university to understand the economy that we ALL participate in, then there is something wrong with the economy. (Incidentally it does not take a degree in Economics to understand what is going on at the micro or macro level. Also, the idea that an accredited university gives one more of standing in the debate is elitist and absurd.)

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • hammywill:

      or its because we have spent countless hours reading, writing, and studying the subject under economists who have practice econ, written about econ, and published peer reviewed papers for decades. and of course the benefit of learning from a couple dozen or so different individuals who come from a diverse background. i want but what do i know, im just an educated idiot. I know that when i hire an electrician i want one who has experience, not one who read one book and observed a house being wired a few time who thinks thats experience. but that could just be me.

      I will give you david ricardo.

      second, fractional reserve lending is not theft. It allows some one to use the money when it would other wise be unused. In it all three parties get a benefit. The lender (depositor) gets a return on investment thats better that -3% (inflation), and the creditor is able to make a profit, and the debtor is able to get money in the short term. while the depositor lets their money sit (which they are still insured), a company can turn a profit and it allows people to get credit (wether it be a person, business, or municipality) for investments like new capitol. without it, who could get a loan? i would guess only people who put down huge collateral with a very steep interest rate. Limit the supply of anything, when the demand remains the same, and the price will go up. the price of money over time is interest rates.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  

    • Yaaaaawn... this is such a tired old stupid argument. People watch two or three documentaries and think they are economic and monetary policy experts.

      I haven't seen a documentary debunking the whole anti-fiat currency bullshit movement, most likely because anyone who has a reasonable understanding of economics and takes about 10 minutes to work out the details knows that fiat currency isn't the problem.

      My conspiracy theory is that conservatives/libertarians have taken up this cause so they don't have to look at the realities that we need better income distribution in this country. So stupid.

    • 2 years ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • CreditFigaro:

      I won't pretend to have any credentials or advanced education relating to economics. I'm
      mainly an avid History buff, and coin collector for 50 years. Now, if someone were to ask me where the USA's money started to go down the toilet, I would have to say as far back as during the mid 1840s or mid 1850s when the Philadelphia mint did something radical.
      Prior to that time, for 63 years or so, there was a Constitutional system of weights & measures in place to provide for the domestic tranquility. The rich knew Gold coins. The
      mercantile affluent knew Silver coins. The common man knew large Copper cents. And
      even the humblest of farmers knew the 1/2 cent. (A 1/2 cent was a thick copper coin circa the size of a quarter, and the large cent approaching the size of a Kennedy half dollar.)
      A $20.Gold coin was exchangeable for 2,000 large Copper cents, or 20 Silver dollars.
      When they suddenly did away with the 1/2 cent and the large cent, and within a few years
      reduced the cent to a small and thin size where it's been from 1865 through 1982, they
      changed the power balance betweeen the classes. And the rich found it a lot easier to
      fleece the poor. All that got significantly worse with the introduction of fiat currency after 1913. As Saladin said, there's been an inflation tax levied on the poor and middle class
      so that the wealthy can suck up wealth from the lower classes faster. Inequities in the
      distribution are the problem as you mentioned. I find it interesting to note that Eliot Spitzer,
      (the former Attorney General under N.Y.Governor Patacki, who was elected Governor per se before he was deposed in a sex scandle) claims that the Federal Reserve is a Ponzi Scheme. He would know. He made an reputation for himself as a reformist lawyer who'd go after the Goliaths, and sue them in New York Courts to benefit the common man. The
      French uberrich Rothchilds, one of the 4 international co-owners of the Fed, ostensibly made their main fortune, not in vineyards, but in "business development companies". The
      Fed sure fits that description since they seem to view the USA as their company whose economy they control.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
    • 0
      CreditFigaro  
    • CreditFigaro:

      That's an interesting story.

      At the end of the day, the rich are always going to come out OK. They are flexible enough to put their money in monetary investments during periods of deflation, and nonmonetary investments during periods of hyperinflation.

      The only thing the rich can't dodge effectively and the poor don't have to pay are high marginal tax rates on high earners.

      What I've advocated for a long time is requiring a proportional distribution of income within a firm and punishing tax rates for going outside of that relative distribution.

      For example, you can't pay a top executive or board member more than 20 times the lowest paid worker in the firm. If you do, you have to pay 90% of each dollar that falls outside of the structure in taxes.

      We wouldn't need a minimum wage, then. People wouldn't work for a firm that doesn't pay enough and many firms would pay much more, labor would become much more in demand, yet the incentive to remain efficient persists.

      Watch every US company that outsources its production to mexico or china come crawling back, begging us to let them hire our workers.

      At the end of the day, fiat currency isn't the problem. Steady inflation doesn't hurt that bad. What hurts is wide differences in income distribution.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  

    • Jake how many econ classes have you taken? it says you graduated with a ChemEng. Have you EVER taken a econ class (above intro to micro/macroecon) from an accredited university?

    • 2 years ago
  • Jake_Towne
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      All your link showed was that you passed freshman econ (ie basic micro/macroecon theory). Which albeit you got an A 12yrs ago, you didn't realize we weren't on a gold standard until 2 yrs ago. (wtf. who the hell taught you? i'd ask for my money back) Besides the classes that i exempted when i asked the question, you have taken ONE class (or one semester at most but through my quick google research it looks like a seminar). In addition its not an accredited university. why is it .org and not .edu? Its a seminar, not an class.

      You just proved my point. lrn2econ

    • 2 years ago
  • Xlancer
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • by your logic then no money anywhere is worth anything either. Yes. Anywhere. There is no country in the world that uses hard currency. The US was one of the last to drop it in fact.

    • 2 years ago
  • QueenGloria
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • QueenGloria:

      no, it's just posted on by morons. That's what happens when anyone is allowed to do something. Witness any urban freeway at rush hour. It's good for humor value though.

      comedy and conspiracy theory added

    • 2 years ago
  • lenhart
  • bombastinator
  • rwahrens
  • life_4_rent
    • 0
      life_4_rent [removed]  

    • How often have people actually made money by holding the dollar? Early 80's when Volcker did the right thing. Overall people lose in the dollar, and that seems well known. It seems like the American Economy is a Ponzi Scheme, and not necessarily the dollar.

    • 2 years ago
  • rickm8
  • bombastinator
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  

    • "All holders of dollars - including myself and most readers of this article - are in debt to the Federal Reserve. Now, this debt is really phantom debt, but the key really is printed on each dollar, more properly known as a Federal Reserve Note: ”This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” (1)"

      Biggest buncha crap I've ever heard. That statement is ONLY to note that the dollar is legal money, and it means that BOTH private parties and "public" parties (governments and publicly traded corporations) can use it to service and pay off debt. It has NOTHING to do with the US Government's public debt, which he goes on to spew more crap about.

      We are all debtors in the sense that we are taxpayers and US citizens - and the US Government spends and borrows money in our names, as our representative.

      The government is borrowing - AND PAYING OFF - debt every day. Most debt the government owes is short term debt - used to meet short term cash needs before Treasury can move money from one account to another, or until cash receipts are disbursed.

      Much longer term debt is in the form of US Treasury bonds of all the various types and series. Most of THAT is for a specific term before interest is paid. Some aren't payable until the term is over.

      This guy is just trolling for attention, as most economists know he's blowing crap outta an unmentionable orifice. He is taking advantage of the fact that most ordinary people don't know a bond from a piece of rope.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jake_Towne
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • rwahrens:

      nice post rwa,

      i would also like to note, that one of the driving forces of our debt, in the future 10-30 yrs, will be SS payments to the babyboomers. As that demographic moves into SS payments, the FICA tax will have a very hard time to pay for all of the collectees.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • rwahrens:

      Jake, you had me until you used both the Ponzi scheme words and talked about the Fed issuing "new dollar currency" "whenever it wishes".

      Perhaps you should go to the Mint and also visit the Fed and get a tour - they'll tell you how the Fed REALLY controls the money supply - which doesn't have crap to do with printing money!

      If you're gonna run for Congress, you should get educated so you can pass legislation that makes sense.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jake_Towne
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • rwahrens:

      "printing of cash and the money supply are not necessarily linked "

      They are not linked AT ALL.

      The money supply is increased or decreased solely through the Federal Reserve's control of interest rates and member banks' demand deposit reserve accounts.

      Real cash is exchanged dollar for dollar by the Mint, as old currency is sent to it by the Fed.

      Any economist knows this, and would never use "Printing money" as a euphemism for the real mechanism.

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • rwahrens:

      your sister isn't the problem. Its how they set it up. The young pay for the old. the original collectors didn't pay much to be able to recieve full benefits. (i think it was only 6 months worth of work stubs but don't quote me). Its been a treadmill ever since, young paying for old. The old is about to have the greatest ratio to young then ever before.

      How i see it, it also has to do with average life expectancy. When it was first set up, the age in which you collect (to lazy to look up but about 55) but the average life expectancy was something like 62 yrs old. Now you can collect (between 62-65 depending on what % you want back) and the average person live to about 78ish. Plus the baby boomers are expected to push that number back more. People who get on it are on it longer then initially thought.

      glad to see someone who knows econ in here. Have you read Superfreakonomics yet? im in middle of it and recommend it.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • rwahrens:

      Economics isn't hard, they teach enough in two semesters in college to be familiar with the system and how it works. Unfortunately, most people don't take it, so anybody in a clown suit can stand up and spout the lingo like Jake and this other guy and people will think they know something the experts don't.

      As soon as Jake started spouting his BS about how the Fed prints money to expand the money supply I knew he was full of more crap than a thanksgiving turkey! He backtracked fast, but not fast enough.

      He is ignorant about how the system works, and his crud panders to those who are out of work but don't know enough to understand how Jake is pulling their legs.

      I guess it really is true that anybody in a clown suit can run for Congress. These days, the more outrageous the suit, the better chance they have of winning!

    • 2 years ago
  • FishaHouse777
    • 0
      FishaHouse777  

    • No but the dollar is practically worthless, nothing is backing up the dollar except our federal reserve's "promise". No gold, no silver, no nothing is backing up our dollar except our governments ignorance.

    • 2 years ago
  • rwahrens
    • 0
      rwahrens  
    • FishaHouse777:

      LOL!!

      ALL money is based upon perceived value. There isn't a monetary system out there that has any intrinsic value. Even gold is valued according to how people value it, and the price of it varies from minute to minute on the open market.

      Even a barter system is based upon perceived value, but using a standard monetary unit like a dollar or a Euro is easier when you have to do your accounting at the end of the year to see how much you made or lost.

      People putting out crap like this guy's article only muddy the waters for those that don't know he's talking out of the side of his mouth.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jake_Towne
    • 0
      Jake_Towne  
    • Image
    • FishaHouse777:

      Did you even read what I wrote? "But keep in mind the truth - the value of the dollar is completely subjective. Same with an egg or barrel of oil. Even the value of an ounce of gold is completely subjective. If you understand this truth, and study the world's most critical market (yes, it's gold) 2010 will be prosperous. As always, feel free to ask questions below and I will do my very best to answer them. "

      Also check this out http://towneforcongress.com/economy/chasing-gelten-shadows-1

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • FishaHouse777:

      jake, what i got out of your article was that money has devalued. So. Its called inflation. But your article seems to completely ignore real wages and purchasing power.

      Your article also ignores real price, you only speak in nominal terms.

      Your article also says "and it must also have a relatively stable purchasing power" i would say that how much purchasing power you get out of an hour of work needs to be stable. Who cares how many zeros you got, i want to know how many chickens i get for one hour of work. something your theory completely ignores.

      lastly you seem to completely ignore the problem with deflation. If i hold onto something for one day longer it will gain purchasing power. Any rational person will hold onto money for as long as possible to max out its value. If everyone hoards their money, buisness and economic processes come to a screeching halt, and in turn drives up the value of hoarding even more. (look at japan during the 90's if you don't believe me)

      fiat money works just fine if a couple of things happen; inflation is worked into salaries (predictable inflation), there are savings vesselse that allow you to make a return on investment greater than inflation (helps drive investment (economic sense not savings)),

    • 2 years ago
  • Xlancer
    • 0
      Xlancer  
    • FishaHouse777:

      "jake, what i got out of your article was that money has devalued. So. Its called inflation. But your article seems to completely ignore real wages and purchasing power."

      There is a difference between natural inflation and artificial inflation. Jake is saying that artificial inflation helps those who use the new money first(usually the rich) at the expense of those who use it last.

      "Your article also ignores real price, you only speak in nominal terms."

      This Article was written for the general public, most of whom have no idea and don't care about economics. If you want an in depth look at Austrian economics I would suggest Mises.org

      "Your article also says "and it must also have a relatively stable purchasing power" i would say that how much purchasing power you get out of an hour of work needs to be stable. Who cares how many zeros you got, i want to know how many chickens i get for one hour of work. something your theory completely ignores."

      The more zeros at the end the harder it is to do business. It's alot easier to add $1.49 + $0.79 than it is to add $149,990.00 + $79,990.00. Computers? Well maybe you don't try to mentally keep track of how much the items that are in your cart cost, but I do. Also there might be a reason why we teach kids how to add 8 digit numbers a couple years after 2 or 3 digit numbers. I think we can all agree that no money standard is stagnant, but the US dollar hasn't become any more stable since we went to paper. Quit the opposite. (BTW Austrian economists don't support the gold standard check out "The Ethics of Money Production" by Jörg Guido Hülsmann. Here is the PDF of the book http://mises.org/books/moneyproduction.pdf The section about the Gold standard starts on 221/292.)

      "lastly you seem to completely ignore the problem with deflation. If i hold onto something for one day longer it will gain purchasing power. Any rational person will hold onto money for as long as possible to max out its value. If everyone hoards their money, buisness and economic processes come to a screeching halt, and in turn drives up the value of hoarding even more. (look at japan during the 90's if you don't believe me)"

      Money is just a medium of exchange. If people are hording moeny, then the supply of money in circulation goes down, but the amount of resources that exist remain the same. It's no more difficult or worse for a business to adjust for falling dollar(inflation) than it is to adjust for rising dollar(deflation). It happens everyday(look at 2008). So why do we think it's necessary to artificially create inflation?

      "fiat money works just fine if a couple of things happen; inflation is worked into salaries (predictable inflation), there are savings vesselse that allow you to make a return on investment greater than inflation (helps drive investment (economic sense not savings)),"

      I'm sure predictable deflation could just as easily be worked into salaries. Plus this would allow people the choice to save their money in banks that store their money, rather than risking it by investing it into banks that loan it out. What about deposit insurance? Didn't we just spend hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out the banks? But yet we still had to bail out the FDIC anyway...

    • 2 years ago
  • Scathian
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos