Links and Stuff About US Contact Lunar
Welcome to Lunar Magazine
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar  RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Republican debate tonight...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry... I've been waaaaay too busy lately to post anything beyond some random bullshit here and there.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Is it a personal thing with Jackson? The man was a giant asshole at times but I'm not trying to argue over the validity of Jackson's policies and time in office which had some very obvious flaws.

I'm not arguing over the validity of Jackson's policies. You brought him up to argue that his policy of ending the bank was the primary factor in the debt being paid down. You have not provided any actual evidence that this was the case.


No not being paid down but being paid off... and it was the primary factor.

Are you really going to continue to argue these points and try to hang me simply on the fact that I didn't mention the selling of federal land and spending cuts as contributions to ending the debt when in reality he would have never paid it off 100% had it not been for his denial of a Second Bank charter? His actions allowed him to gain momentum enough to get to that point and make the Second Bank appear obsolete. Which it was most certainly was.

Whether or not he sold land or apples or fireworks is as irrelevant as your points and attempts to twist my words.

The charter was denied because the corrupt Second Bank was no longer needed.

The trust left the bank and slowly returned to the people over time due to Jackson's policies and he was able to justify the lack of necessity for a Second Bank.

He could not have paid the debt off completely without the abolishing of the Second Bank Charter. Google that.

You Google it. I have. And you've not even come close to supporting any of the above claims... You just keep asserting it ad nauseum.

Also, the charter renewal was vetoed in 1832, before the massive amounts of revenues from land sales, so how exactly did the latter give momentum for the former?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
However, he was the last president to successfully stand up to the Central Bank and succeed in paying off the debt completely and did not renew the charter to the Central Bank.

You have been trying to argue that there is a causal link between the two policies. All I have been arguing is that there is not.


Which policies are you referring to?

1. Ending the Bank and 2. paying off the debt. You've not made a case for a causal link.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
True they would pay interest elsewhere.

So then why did you even bring up interest rates? Why claim that not having to pay the Second Bank's interest rates was instrumental in paying down the debt if they had to be paid everywhere else as well?

Because state chartered rates would be regulated and state chartered banks wouldn't set the rates to make a profit off the government.

You're just making this shit up as you go along.

what extra regulations were on state-chartered banks that weren't on the Second Bank? What were the interest rates that they charged that didn't bring them a profit?


I truly wish I was making this shit up.

I never said anything about extra regulations and was implying that the Second Bank kept the economy in perpetual debt by way of fractional reserve banking.

Again, the state banks ramped up the fractional reserve banking once the the federal money was in their possession. Do you think it was through better, stricter regulation that state banks took fractional reserve banking to a whole new level?

And yes, you did say that the state banks had extra regulation because when I asked you why it mattered that the Second Bank charged interest but it didn't matter that the state banks did, your answer was this:
shlee wrote:
Because state chartered rates would be regulated and state chartered banks wouldn't set the rates to make a profit off the government.

So, again, Tell me what these rates were that the state banks charged that didn't bring them a profit?


shlee wrote:
My on-going argument is still the same regarding state-chartered banks: they would be watched more closely (regulated) federally as well as locally. Power would not be consolidated near as much. State banks would work with the government not against it.

Then surely you can point me to these federal regulations. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Support it or withdraw it.

Here, let me help... Google "Second Bank of the United States" "federal regulation", and pretty much every link describes a complete lack of federal regulation of the state banks:

"...was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered banks with no federal regulation."
"...banking was a hodgepodge of state-chartered banks without federal regulation."
"...of state-chartered banks operating without federal regulation and issuing notes..."
"After the charter for the Second Bank of the United States ended, the U.S. government opted not to implement federal regulation over banking"

You are very clearly just making shit up regarding federal regulation of the banking industry after the demise of the Second Bank.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Not true that elsewhere would be a PRIVATE run bank

Oh really? So which non-PRIVATE banks did Jackson move federal deposits into?

The ones that were truly federally and locally regulated?? Just guessing here...

Yes, you clearly are just pulling shit out of thin air. How about you name just one of these non-private banks?

The Bank of the Manhattan Company was private and it received federal deposits. Same with the Mechanics Bank of New York... and the Union Bank in Baltimore.. and the Bank of Maryland, and so on......


Who regulated these banks? Which ones printed money? Which ones belong(ed) to JP Morgan? What's the difference in these banks controlling our money supply versus the Second Bank?

Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one arguing that these banks weren't private and were better regulated, when they were neither.


shlee wrote:
There is clearly some gray area when defining a 'private bank'...

Oh, so now there is a gray area? Sorry, but if those banks don't count as "private banks" then neither did the Second Bank. And if you do consider the Second Bank to have been "private", then so were those state-chartered banks, in which case, you must not have a problem with private banks making money off of federal deposits, because that's exactly what all those PRIVATE state-chartered banks did when Jackson moved the deposits into them. You can't have it both ways.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
who had absolute authority over printing currency

What do you mean by "absolute authority"? All the other banks printed currency while the Second Bank was in use by the federal government.


who printed the overwhelming majority? who had the power?

So not absolute authority? And why did that matter? Fractional reserve banking got worse after the federal deposits were moved into the state banks.


Second Bank printed federal notes and had authority over smaller banks.

This mattered because they were the experts at fractional reserve banking and without them (foreign bankers/moneychangers) our banking system was helpless because it had already become so dependent on the system of fractional reserve banking with the Second Bank. Now, with the bully's of the neighborhood suddenly gone, local and state banks lost control.

We never gave ourselves enough time to try and fix it.

This is nonsense. You think the state banks didn't use fractional reserve banking before and during the Second Bank? They didn't do it as much while the Second Bank was in use, but saying they were dependent on it because of the Second Bank is absurd.


shlee wrote:
"And every time a panic happens, we go through the same cycle: bailout those immediately affected at taxpayer expense, look for a scapegoat, wave the flag of justice with high-profile criminal prosecutions, and overreach with new legislative and regulatory "solutions" that ignore the underlying problem and further distort the market..." - Jesus Christ 1813

Notice that the preceding paragraph in the blog post you pulled this excerpt from (some former Republican candidate for Congress) says this:
"In short, while Andrew Jackson was able to remove the central bank, he wasn't able to eliminate unsound fractional reserve banking. When one such unsound bank in Massachusetts collapsed, it was discovered that its bank note circulation of $500,000 was backed by exactly $86.48."
And this was a paraphrase of an excerpt from a CNN article which said:
CNN wrote:
Andrew Jackson rid the nation of a central bank in 1836, which helped produce the Panic of 1837. An unforeseen effect of his policies - a host of barely regulated banks flooding the nation with paper money - produced bad results as well as some innovations: Reserve requirements could be met, for instance, by adding a layer of gold coins over a much bigger pile of tenpenny (or subprime) nails..
(emphasis mine)

See, the federal deposits were placed into "a host of barely regulated banks", flooding the nation with paper money, through fractional reserve banking. The practices you're blaming the Second Bank for using to the detriment of the country got worse after the Second Bank went under. This doesn't help your case at all.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
and would lend currency out when times were bad (wars, depression, panics) and call it back when times were good (to create more wars, depressions, panics) thus never being able pay it off completely.

And that wouldn't happen by using multiple private banks instead of one?


I wouldn't say 'never' but with printing power more evenly distributed and actual regulation in place it would be less likely.

Tell me more about this "actual regulation" that was in place? I don't know what regulations you are talking about. I suspect you don't either.

And by the printing power being more "evenly distributed," do you mean only that there were shitloads of different currencies, many of which weren't worth the paper they were printed on?


Well, with a state-chartered or local bank you would have a board made up of members of the community along with members of the state legislature who would represent the bank nationally to discuss and vote on regulations. State to state.

The bank would have limitations on it's printing amount and obviously on it's lending amount. Members of the board would be required by law to have active roles in society in which they lived.

And no, not what I meant by 'evenly distributed'. I meant that the power to print US Dollars would be on the state level not a national private entity.

So clearly you are fantasizing here about your ideal form of banking, rather than actually claiming that this is what was in place among the state banks after the demise of the Second Bank... correct?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
[The government] actually owned 20% of the Second Bank.

Laughing sorry but holy fuck dude... you do know why right?

Because that was the amount of capital the government provided to start the Second Bank.


why 20% though? why not more/less? why put anything into it all?

where did the other 80% come from?

why did they need the government?

The government wanted an interest in the bank. The other 80% came from private investors. What is your point?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Again, the interest from a private federal bank is never able to be paid off rather, it just accumulates because the Federal Reserve has a complete monopoly over how much to give and when to give. NOT the Government.

Then how did the debt ever get paid off? When the Second Bank was first chartered in 1816, the national debt was at $125 million. By the time Jackson became president in 1829, the debt had already been reduced to $48 million. By the time Jackson started moving government deposits from the Second Bank in 1833, the debt was down to $7 million, and interest on all public debt was only about $300,000. And you're trying to tell me that it would have been impossible to pay down the rest without Jackson moving government deposits into state-chartered PRIVATE banks?

Seriously?


Impressive figures.

Your right though, all that debt must have magically dissolved because the policy of the Second Bank was so effective. Nevermind the tactics of the President we've both spent hours arguing over.

What (who?) are you arguing against/for? Seriously?

I'm the one saying that the fiscal policies of Jackson are what paid off the debt. You've been saying that ending the Bank magically dissolved the debt. The reason I posted those figures was to show that the Bank clearly wasn't the hinderance that you've been claiming it was.

You said right up there: "the interest from a private federal bank is never able to be paid off" (emphasis mine)

So please tell me why the government was able to pay down $118 million of the debt while using the Second Bank, but would "never" have been able to pay off the last $7 million while using that same bank.



ha WTF man...

Gonna have to call bullshit.

The bank clearly was the hinderance and Jackson would agree.

Jackson HATED the bank which is why he didn't BORROW from them and they couldn't accumulate interest.

It was his SOLE motivation as president to get rid off the bank.

He wanted the bank to be rid of so badly he went about by selling land and cutting spending to do just that. He was able to recognize the henderance. When popularity and complete trust were on his side he eliminated the bank once and for all.

With more time, this would have been fixed permanently.

And yet more content-free filibustering from you. Are you disputing the numbers I provided?

You can view the breakdown for each year here (this link is to 1833, but the other relevant years are accessible there):
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year1833_m

You've not addressed my actual point. All you keep doing is saying that because Jackson didn't like the bank and also paid down the debt, that one policy must have caused the other.

Address the numbers I provided. Again, "tell me why the government was able to pay down $118 million of the debt while using the Second Bank, but would "never" have been able to pay off the last $7 million while using that same bank."

It is a simple request... If you answer nothing else, answer that.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Unsubstantiated? Hardly.

Many people believe The Fed controls the government and there is a huge amount of evidence and historical fact to back that assertion up.

Shall we go there?

Yes, please substantiate this claim by providing some of these huge amounts of evidence.



Cool. Start with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and get back to me.

Don't just throw out the title of the Federal Reserve Act. Specifically what provisions of the Federal Reserve Act are you talking about that puts control of the government into the hands of the private portion of the Fed?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
I think your arguments are in need of some serious research though.

Jesus Christ... project much? You're the one just making shit up like Jackson ending fractional reserve banking, or the Fed being a completely private institution with no government oversight.


Making shit up??

If you want to split hairs on obvious points by all means I'll continue to waste our time.

Jackson ended fractional reserve being almost exclusively handled and regulated by the Second Bank outside of government regulation.

Really? Jackson stopped the Second Bank's fractional reserve banking when he ended the Second Bank? And that is noteworthy why? And it apparently doesn't matter to you that fractional reserve banking became a much bigger problem after the Second Bank went down.


shlee wrote:
Once the Second Bank dissolved, a much more regulated form of banking was to be put in place.

Yet when I asked you what these extra regulations were, you responded:
shlee wrote:
I never said anything about extra regulations


"much more" = "extra"

So which is it? Was there "much more" regulation after the Second Bank or not? If so, please tell me what the regulations were. Citations would help.


shlee wrote:
Essentially, my argument was Jackson killed off the old and tried to implement the new (or original really) style of US banking. The logic was there but the expertise of the international money changers was not. So a civil war was created and we became fucked for good.

see: US Contraction Act 1865



And I really don't give a shit... The Fed is private.

Right... so the Fed is private, even though it has a government-controlled portion.... yet you've argued that the state-chartered banks that were completely private, not just partially-private like the Fed, with no such government oversight, were not.

Ridiculous.

shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Starting with the government owning 20% of the Second Bank and why that was. Enjoy.

I know why... why don't you tell me what conspiracy theory you believe was the reason?


Asked you first smart guy.

I'll finish my new tin foil hat in the meantime.

See above. The government wanted a central bank, and so they provided limited capital to start one. The end. So let's hear your conspiracy theory now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 
home  |  features  |  events  |  reviews  |  dj charts  |  forum  |  my lunar  |  links  |  about us  |  contact