Prison Block Forums .:. Thread: Face off at 55 Wall st

14 years ago #71

Auminer

View Profile Send Message Attack Auminer View Posts

Level 17

Status: offline

Prison: South Dakota

Incarcerated: 15 years, 5 months

Posts: 1,284

Originally posted by artix

Originally posted by artix i have 2 quit in my wallet i cant afford that shit

seriously though, hows a guy like me gonna be able to get my hands on some gold or silver? SMH

Go pan for gold. It's that simple. Personally, I am panning at the moment from the sand that I wash at my worksite. Here before winter sets in I am going to ask my boss if I can drain the sand screws to get the black sand out of there. I have already found some gold flakes in the few pans I have done.

Do some research and you will actually be able to find gold fairly easily. Hell, at this point you can simply go yard saling and even if you find some gold plated jewelry (usually found really cheap), you can smelt it and make more money than what you spent.

14 years ago #72

eazyas

View Profile Send Message Attack eazyas View Posts

Level 23

Status: offline

Prison: South Dakota

Incarcerated: 16 years, 4 months

Posts: 5,667

[quote=Jebrand]@ easy why do your responses always seem to aim to condescend and rankle anyone who questions your veiws? 
Also, from what I can gather regarding the Bank of England, it was initially privately owned due to the fact the crown had ran out of money during expensive wars.  This is a statement from the Bank of England regarding their ownership;

The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom and was established as a corporate body by Royal Charter under the Bank of England Act 1694. The Bank was nationalised on 1 March 1946, and gained operational independence to set interest rates in 1997 (the Bank of England Act 1998 Part II sets out the responsibilities and objectives of the Bank in relation to monetary policy).

The Bank is a public sector institution, wholly-owned by the government, but accountable to Parliament. The entire capital of the Bank is, in fact, held by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury. Each year, the Bank is required to submit its Report and Accounts to Parliament, via the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think independence from the government (personally as the situation stands, I see the government and the people as two seperate factions, unlike your view) as critical to safeguard the bank from the sort of lobbying and interference you seem to have mentioned earlier in this thread.

So what alternative do you propose/support? One which would not take out the economy of the majority of the world and create a dark ages that would be more destructive than anything documented so far?  I imagine that you cant demonstrate and rally to remove one system without having a viable and solid alternative..? The system in place is far from perfect but the structure is embedded and change would be costly to all far more than the fact a loaf of bread is a bit dear in nothern ireland and that houses cost quite a bit.. so what? the market will settle its self eventually and is NOT comparable to syria/yemen et all at all IMO, I think they would love to swap systems where you can have a welfare state, NHS, a democratic government etc and would take offence to any comparison.  Oh and yes I am 'arragont ,selfish, simple minded and downright incompasionate' [sic], just to beat you to your rant.  [/quote]

Who are you, did you change your name or something ?
Technically the Bank of England is owned by the Queen not the government (the people) , alothough the  Bank of England MPC (monetary policy committie) is chosen by bankers and the queen or government have little to no say about who is elected to the 9 spots on the MPC . These 9 people decide of the countries monetary policy, the government can appoint 1 person to sit in, but he does not get a vote.

Any government WORTH having should be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, prmarily to defend their freedoms and rights agenst those who may try and infringe upon them.

I propose that Governemts should form a state bank , and create their own curency. I do not propse that all banks be nationalised, however, the money supply should be. There have been many times in history when america has nationalised the money supply, and things have went well with big increases in productivity and wealth, these periods in history are well documented in Bill Still's the secret of oz if you take the time to watch. If you look today at the state of North dakota, were they have their own state bank you will see better standards of living and lower levels of debt than in surrounding states.

The second step is to elimate fractional reserve lending, this practise is fradulant and criminal , and isnt a sufficent model for modern banking. Please do a little reading on fractional reserve lending, theres plenty of info easily available on it. 
  
Basically it started off that banks could print and lend out 10x what they held in deposits. Doing this is risky for banks as if all depositers wanted their mony at once , there may not be enough in the vault from deposits, also printing/creating this extra money through loans causes inflation. Pretty soon the bankers decided that 10x wasnt enough and we are now in a situation were Goldman Sachs has more than 333x loans on its balance sheet than capital it holds as deposits, what happens when the bankers at Goldman realise the majority are bads loans that will not be repaid? you gonna bail them out agian ?. This is the reason for the "bank bailouts"  and "too-big-to-fail" , and its worth stating that the recent bank-bailouts havent solved the debt crisis, only bought a little more time.  Therefore, the second step after nationalising the money supply would be a return to honest banking by eliminating the ability of the banks to lend money they dont have, by putting an end to fractional recerve lending.

Originally posted by Jebrand @ easy why do your responses always seem to aim to condescend and rankle anyone who questions your veiws?

Also, from what I can gather regarding the Bank of England, it was initially privately owned due to the fact the crown had ran out of money during expensive wars. This is a statement from the Bank of England regarding their ownership;

The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom and was established as a corporate body by Royal Charter under the Bank of England Act 1694. The Bank was nationalised on 1 March 1946, and gained operational independence to set interest rates in 1997 (the Bank of England Act 1998 Part II sets out the responsibilities and objectives of the Bank in relation to monetary policy).

The Bank is a public sector institution, wholly-owned by the government, but accountable to Parliament. The entire capital of the Bank is, in fact, held by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury. Each year, the Bank is required to submit its Report and Accounts to Parliament, via the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think independence from the government (personally as the situation stands, I see the government and the people as two seperate factions, unlike your view) as critical to safeguard the bank from the sort of lobbying and interference you seem to have mentioned earlier in this thread.

So what alternative do you propose/support? One which would not take out the economy of the majority of the world and create a dark ages that would be more destructive than anything documented so far? I imagine that you cant demonstrate and rally to remove one system without having a viable and solid alternative..? The system in place is far from perfect but the structure is embedded and change would be costly to all far more than the fact a loaf of bread is a bit dear in nothern ireland and that houses cost quite a bit.. so what? the market will settle its self eventually and is NOT comparable to syria/yemen et all at all IMO, I think they would love to swap systems where you can have a welfare state, NHS, a democratic government etc and would take offence to any comparison. Oh and yes I am 'arragont ,selfish, simple minded and downright incompasionate' [sic], just to beat you to your rant.

Who are you, did you change your name or something ?

Technically the Bank of England is owned by the Queen not the government (the people) , alothough the Bank of England MPC (monetary policy committie) is chosen by bankers and the queen or government have little to no say about who is elected to the 9 spots on the MPC . These 9 people decide of the countries monetary policy, the government can appoint 1 person to sit in, but he does not get a vote.

Any government WORTH having should be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, prmarily to defend their freedoms and rights agenst those who may try and infringe upon them.

I propose that Governemts should form a state bank , and create their own curency. I do not propse that all banks be nationalised, however, the money supply should be. There have been many times in history when america has nationalised the money supply, and things have went well with big increases in productivity and wealth, these periods in history are well documented in Bill Still's the secret of oz if you take the time to watch. If you look today at the state of North dakota, were they have their own state bank you will see better standards of living and lower levels of debt than in surrounding states.

The second step is to elimate fractional reserve lending, this practise is fradulant and criminal , and isnt a sufficent model for modern banking. Please do a little reading on fractional reserve lending, theres plenty of info easily available on it.

Basically it started off that banks could print and lend out 10x what they held in deposits. Doing this is risky for banks as if all depositers wanted their mony at once , there may not be enough in the vault from deposits, also printing/creating this extra money through loans causes inflation. Pretty soon the bankers decided that 10x wasnt enough and we are now in a situation were Goldman Sachs has more than 333x loans on its balance sheet than capital it holds as deposits, what happens when the bankers at Goldman realise the majority are bads loans that will not be repaid? you gonna bail them out agian ?. This is the reason for the "bank bailouts" and "too-big-to-fail" , and its worth stating that the recent bank-bailouts havent solved the debt crisis, only bought a little more time. Therefore, the second step after nationalising the money supply would be a return to honest banking by eliminating the ability of the banks to lend money they dont have, by putting an end to fractional recerve lending.

Last edited by eazyas 14 years ago

DONATE BTC - 134YMw8h2p6FuTAjpjcv2DhrMD3C6hgpPJ

14 years ago #73

nickrox

View Profile Send Message Attack nickrox View Posts

Level 31

Status: offline

Gang: MeMyselfnI

Prison: South Dakota

Incarcerated: 16 years, 1 month

Posts: 7,235

eazy...just do down in a ball of fury like the rest of u

14 years ago #74

Jebrand

View Profile Send Message Attack Jebrand View Posts

Level 15

Status: offline

Gang: Non Aligned Movement

Prison: South Dakota

Incarcerated: 15 years, 3 months

Posts: 121

@easy - no name change ive always been me... Thanks for your more reasoned reply with an explaination that's not a hour+ vid.. Im away from home for a few days and don't use my iPhOne on here as it's a pain in the ass but I'll cOme back to this discussion if that's cool. Ideally I Agree with most ur points I just ATM don't have faith that it could be put Into practice as good as the concept suggests Irw