What Would Happen If There Was No Central Bank?

[Ares]

The establishment would have us believe that a world without central banks would be 'like all the worst parts of the bible', but as Professor Lawrence White notes, as failures among central banking systems mount, it is time to reconsider the alternative of free banking. Private banks would be able to circulate money by issuing notes and checks redeemable for coin. Trustworthy banks would make arrangements to accept each other's notes and checks. Banks would have better incentives than the federal government to ensure their currency retained its value, because if it didn't, people would bank elsewhere. By contrast, White notes, central banks controlled by the government are able to devalue currency as they see fit and can even quit redeeming notes for coins of real value if they want to do so. It sounds like social-science fiction, but there are numerous real-world examples in history of successful free-banking systems.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVK-kgSQMPs&feature=player_embedded

link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVK-kgSQMPs&feature=player_embedded

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-12/what-would-happen-if-there-was-no-central-bank

[madfranks]

Isn't this what was once known as "wildcat" banking?

[singular_me]

as long as greed (hoarding money for power or borrowing one's future) exists and not understood by the average people, the outcome wont change, the implosion may just take a longer time but will occur at some point nonetheless.

money isnt the core of the problem but our relationship with it... and how we project ourselves into it. It really is a mind over matter game/illusion. Bad projection = bad outcome

[Hatha Sunahara]

Singular-me, I think you're absolutely right. Individual greed can lead to the ruin of the individual, and that might be a manifestation of karma. However, we have a government that acts out our 'collective' greed, and thereby nullifies individual choice to not participate in risk motivated by greed. You can save your money, never borrow a dime, live responsibly within your means and prosper, but if your government is profligate, irresponsible, and imprudent, it will load us all with collective debt, and your individual virtue counts for nothing.

The government established the central bank so it could finance grandiose imprudent projects like a welfare state, a police state, and countless wars, and have the ability to pay for it on the installment plan. When the Fed was created, the government needed a way to make their monthly payments to the bank, so they saddled us all with an income tax to pay for our own enslavement.

Getting rid of the central bank will require we have a completely different government with a completely different set of values and motivations. The government would have to create its own money, and if the 'free banks' want to survive, we would have to revert to 'constitutional money'--gold and silver to back up the money the banks create. And this is what would cause the system to fail because the government issuing its own money would be limited by the availability of gold and silver. I doubt we could have a government that is a shadow of itself without an enormous struggle against those who would resist this kind of change. It is more likely that both the government and its central bank would fail, and we would have to start from scratch to rebuild the government without a central bank, and with some fiscal responsibility. What you see now with the 'Too Big To Fail' institutions is that resistance to constructive changes.

Our big problem right now is that our government is a tool of the bankster megalomaniacs. Got any ideas about how to put control of the government back in the hands of the people?


Hatha

[Twisted Titan]

No central bank....

The last person to accomplish that feat was old hickory Andrew Jackson.

He whiped their asses so bad it took them 80 years before they tried again and during that period US was the absolute envy in terms of economic and political freedom.

[PatColo]

the smartest gatekeeper alive doesn't like the idea, :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQU8aaW90o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQU8aaW90o

[iOWNme]

"What would happen if there were no Central Bank"?

If tomorow all the 'Central Banks' of the world went POOF and vanished into thin air, ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING would change. Do you know why? Because there would still be a 'Government' who would still be IMAGINED to have a MONOPOLY on violence. How long do you think the 'Government' would let pople interact voluntarily until they created another 'Central Bank'? This really is elementary.....

Thats the thing, people try so hard to get rid of 'Central Banks' without realizing that 'Central Banks' ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT.

You are NEVER going to rid the earth of the parasitic class until you rid your mind of its metal chains. YOU empower them.

Without the brute force of 'Government' there can be no STATE imposed 'Central Bank'. Until people stop IMAGINING that 'Authority' is needed to keep society together, you are ALWAYS going to have 'Central Banks' and Laws against 'counterfieting'. Even when the US had no Central Bank, there were many Laws against counterfieitng, interest rates, etc.

[Horn]

money isnt the core of the problem but our relationship with it... and how we project ourselves into it. It really is a mind over matter game/illusion. Bad projection = bad outcome

An elevation of money to virtually all powerful, at the same time an evident shamed neglect and disposal of reality.

guess its a Styx kind of day.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8TlrYhBxk

[iOWNme]

Getting rid of the central bank will require we have a completely different government with a completely different set of values and motivations. The government would have to create its own money, and if the 'free banks' want to survive, we would have to revert to 'constitutional money'--gold and silver to back up the money the banks create. And this is what would cause the system to fail because the government issuing its own money would be limited by the availability of gold and silver. I doubt we could have a government that is a shadow of itself without an enormous struggle against those who would resist this kind of change. It is more likely that both the government and its central bank would fail, and we would have to start from scratch to rebuild the government without a central bank, and with some fiscal responsibility. What you see now with the 'Too Big To Fail' institutions is that resistance to constructive changes.

So i should be FORCED to use Gold/Silver as money because the 'Government' said so? Really? Im not bashing you, but people get stuck inside the whole 'Constitutional' thingy which basically throws their critical thinking skills in the wind. NO MAN can force another man to use anything he doesnt want to. PERIOD.

Do you really think there can be a 'Government' that does not run the money system? And when 'Government' runs the money system.....YOU ARE A SLAVE.

You cannot create a 'Government' anymore than you can create Santa Clause. There is no such thing as 'Government' and NEVER has been. A man cannot delegate a Right he does not have as an individual = POOF! There went 'Government'.


Our big problem right now is that our government is a tool of the bankster megalomaniacs. Got any ideas about how to put control of the government back in the hands of the people?

Ummmm....Yeah. STOP IMAGINING that the biggest GANG OF VIOLOENT CRIMINALS ON EARTH have any type of legitimacy to them. See, the people ALREADY OWN THEMSLEVES AND ARE FREE...........They just dont believe it themsleves. Fix that issue, and 'Central Banks' and 'Government' DISSAPEAR overnight. Because they only exist in the minds of men.

[Uncle Salty]

The biggest issue with money is the relationship of the medium of exchange to the store of value functions.

An honest money system has them separated. And an honest money system lets them float.

That way savers are rewarded and aren't forced to speculate to maintain purchasing power.

If you don't accomplish those two things, you are talking out your ass.

[singular_me]

I concur with all that, Hatha... money is neither bad nor good in itself, but I think that responsible benevolence and empathy have to be regarded as moral/psychic currencies as a way to sustain ethical materialism. The Mind is the start of everything and this can be taught in elementary school. I plan on writing an column about this very soon :)



Singular-me, I think you're absolutely right. Individual greed can lead to the ruin of the individual, and that might be a manifestation of karma. However, we have a government that acts out our 'collective' greed, and thereby nullifies individual choice to not participate in risk motivated by greed. You can save your money, never borrow a dime, live responsibly within your means and prosper, but if your government is profligate, irresponsible, and imprudent, it will load us all with collective debt, and your individual virtue counts for nothing.

The government established the central bank so it could finance grandiose imprudent projects like a welfare state, a police state, and countless wars, and have the ability to pay for it on the installment plan. When the Fed was created, the government needed a way to make their monthly payments to the bank, so they saddled us all with an income tax to pay for our own enslavement.

Getting rid of the central bank will require we have a completely different government with a completely different set of values and motivations. The government would have to create its own money, and if the 'free banks' want to survive, we would have to revert to 'constitutional money'--gold and silver to back up the money the banks create. And this is what would cause the system to fail because the government issuing its own money would be limited by the availability of gold and silver. I doubt we could have a government that is a shadow of itself without an enormous struggle against those who would resist this kind of change. It is more likely that both the government and its central bank would fail, and we would have to start from scratch to rebuild the government without a central bank, and with some fiscal responsibility. What you see now with the 'Too Big To Fail' institutions is that resistance to constructive changes.

Our big problem right now is that our government is a tool of the bankster megalomaniacs. Got any ideas about how to put control of the government back in the hands of the people?


Hatha

[Hatha Sunahara]

A government borrowing money into existence from a central bank is forcing the collective support for usury. Between government and usury, Sui Juris, can you tell which is the lesser evil? You seem to think if there was no government, there would be no usury.

I don't disagree with anything you said above. I'm a fan of Larken Rose myself. I think however that usury is more destructive to freedom than government is. Although, without government, you could just say no to usury.


Hatha

[singular_me]

when did I say/imply this, Hatha ???

um-um greed allows usury to come into existence.... and ignorance, all those fail to grasp as how this affects the "whole"... but I think conscious anarchists are aware of the evils caused by usury and will be the least inclined to resort to it.

I dont think banks should lend money at all. Money, if borrowed, should come from private investors, friends, financial partners, etc... all of which should take the losses if the projects/investments fail... and in case of profits, the parties should split them according to the contract signed with those who lend the $$.

Banks should be public servants and nothing else and not take part in any stock market activity. There are investment firms for this.

we have reached a point where the dual meaning of everything has become obvious. And to sort this out, only the empathy currency can make the difference.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Singular-me, I'm not arguing with you. I think usury is the highest expression of greed. Usury is the financial expression of sociopathy--a complete lack of empathy. It's money however that you get in exchange for your labor--not empathy. I'm one of those anarchists that would not enter into an agreement that involves usury--either on the paying end or the receiving end. I would never borrow money from a bank unless nothing else was available to me. For me, banks are merely clearing agents for money transfers. If I could enter into cash only transactions exclusively, I wouldn't do business with banks at all.

Hatha

[Bigjon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK6ftzkX7xc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK6ftzkX7xc

Published on Nov 8, 2013

The U.S. GDP number is fake because it includes quantitative easing money injections.

[singular_me]

I know you are not arguing with me... ditto about usury... and glad to see that you are on the anarchy side. :) and that we agree about the ethical purpose of banks should have in society.

only empathy (awareness of the consequences of usury) can overthrow greed. IMHO. I am almost sure that it is what you mean with other words. :)



Singular-me, I'm not arguing with you. I think usury is the highest expression of greed. Usury is the financial expression of sociopathy--a complete lack of empathy. It's money however that you get in exchange for your labor--not empathy. I'm one of those anarchists that would not enter into an agreement that involves usury--either on the paying end or the receiving end. I would never borrow money from a bank unless nothing else was available to me. For me, banks are merely clearing agents for money transfers. If I could enter into cash only transactions exclusively, I wouldn't do business with banks at all.

Hatha