> "Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:13r3bhhmjonq2f6@corp.supernews.com...
>

>>Marcello wrote:
>>

>>>"Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>Marcello wrote...

>>>>no, what we have is a private sector that in almost all area's can
>>>>create money out of thin air. general electric does it. the

> tcq.net> wrote in message
>
> news:26431cf9-fd1e-47e4-8a28-19eae43e1860@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> On Feb 12, 7:47 am, Jeffrey Turner localnet.com> wrote:

>>> Marcello wrote:

>>>> tcq.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>no, what we have is a private sector that in almost all area's can
>>>>>create money out of thin air. general electric does it. the
>>>>>unregulated, outside of the government banking, and federal reserve
>>>>>banking regulations mortgage brokers did it, big time. the stock
>>>>>market does it, car loan companies do it. so our government allows any
>>>>>looney tune in the private sector can issue credit, which equals
>>>>>money.

>

>>>> Unregulated? Are you kidding? The government does not permit ...

> On Feb 12, 8:28 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>

>>>>>no, what we have is a private sector that in almost all area's can
>>>>>create money out of thin air. general electric does it. the

>
> Yes--the medieval Medici's invented "creating money out of thin air"
> with their voucher system, which was essentially fractional reserve
> banking. During a business cycle expansion this is common; during a
> contraction like the present the opposite occurs (money vanishes). And
> your point is?

> 'progress', French or Spanish style?

> On Feb 11, 6:08 pm, "Marcello" nospam.com> wrote:

>>> A few hundred years ago when the total GDP was $1 million dollars, the
>>> wealth was distributed according to the $1 million dollars overall
>>> value. A King might get $1000 dollars in today's value. A today's poor
>>> may get $2000 dollars (thus "The poor today live better lives than
>>> kings from only a few hundred years ago"), but that has nothing to
>>> justify the king's claim that he was entitled to all the $1 million
>>> dollars a few hundred years ago. Because if he did, everybody else
>>> will be starved to death. Thus the entitlement at time X is evaluated
>>> based on the overall wealth at time X, not X-500 or X+500. You kept
>>> committing all kinds of time frame fallacies.

>>
>> This is entirely based on your assumption that wealth is limited. Your
>> points are valid if that were true, but you offer no evidence to support
>> the
>> claim of a limited amount of wealth.

>
> This can be deduced as the following: Premise 1: the wealth is ...

>

>> Something I said caused you to feel the need to begin name calling?

>
> If you don't want to be thought a fool, you'll have to explain how a
> country without a central gov't, like Somalia, or a country where the
> gov't doesn't do anything for the people, like Equatorial Guinea, is
> better than the U.S.

> "Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:13r5simlno140bb@corp.supernews.com...
>
>

>>> Something I said caused you to feel the need to begin name calling?

>>
>>If you don't want to be thought a fool, you'll have to explain how a
>>country without a central gov't, like Somalia, or a country where the
>>gov't doesn't do anything for the people, like Equatorial Guinea, is
>>better than the U.S.

>
>
> You are offering a classic strawman argument now. Honestly, your tactics
> are becoming tedious. Never once have I stated any oppositition to a
> central government.
>
>

> Marcello wrote:

>> "Jeffrey Turner" localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:13r5simlno140bb@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>

>>>> Something I said caused you to feel the need to begin name calling?

>>>
>>>If you don't want to be thought a fool, you'll have to explain how a
>>>country without a central gov't, like Somalia, or a country where the
>>>gov't doesn't do anything for the people, like Equatorial Guinea, is
>>>better than the U.S.

>>
>>
>> You are offering a classic strawman argument now. Honestly, your tactics
>> are becoming tedious. Never once have I stated any oppositition to a
>> central government.
>>
>> ...

>
> lets try this one more time. the fed had nothing to do with the
> current over extension of credit. the mortgage brokers were not part
> of the fed. the brokers were in almost all cases, unregulated by the

> what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that makes
> no sense.
> what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts or embraces advise
> that makes no sense.

> tcq.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2d5456f6-3077-40d5-bcc2-8d9aea2545cf@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> lets try this one more time. the fed had nothing to do with the
>> current over extension of credit. the mortgage brokers were not part
>> of the fed. the brokers were in almost all cases, unregulated by the

>
> Do you understand how the central banking system works?

> loans exist is the Fed's willingness to permit loans from banks as a
> multiple of their deposits...in other words, loans of money that does not
> exist.