deanwins

Members
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by deanwins

  1. Hello, Hey, its Bitcoin, one of my favorite subjects! In the past, gold as money has been shut down by the federal government via confinscation and taxing banks. Hence USD's monopoly position on money has been enforced. The federal government confinscates all sorts of wealth from producers, and channels that wealth towards all sorts of things that would be considered wealth redistribuition rather than "protecting the property of innocent citizens". 1. Federal Reserve & Big Banks print money for themselves and their friends, stealing market purchasing power from wage earners and other producers. 2. They buy the news channels and manipulate the sheeple 3. They advertise their political picks and marginalize the free market opposition, giving the sheeple only 2 false alternatives for their political representatives. 4. Sheeple are trained to believe Keynesian fantasy rather than Austrian economic consequences, and they are frequently ok with wealth redistribuiton, empowerd by the government 5. Federal Reserve is now buying/holding US Treasuries: funding the federal government via money printing Bitcoin has the potential to break the shackles of the current USD money monopoly. Bitcoin is not as vulnerable as gold to taxation and confinscation. As more people store wealth in Bitcoin rather than USD, the market purchasing power available to the bankers and federal government and will be diminished. Hence Bitcoin is one of my favorite things. I would recommend Bitcoin as an investment, and as a store of wealth, and as a means of trade, and as a means to protect yourself from monopoly money inflation. Similarly I would also recommend gold, but of course with different properties and different risks. I think gold is undervalued at the moment. Bitcoin is a new technology, that as a money is not very well proven, so of course it is a risky investment. Might I point out that Bitcoin's use to purchase (illegal) drugs is a good thing, enabiling people to do what they want with thier own bodies with less risk and cost than previous channels of purchasing from local gangs. Drugs should not be illegal. Government should get out of approving/banning drugs and licensing sellers. I personally don't do drugs, but I'm a proponent of self ownership. Cheers, Dean
  2. Jonathan & Brant, sarcasm: I was in the WTC 7 stairwell when it was blown apart by explosives minutes before the building was demolished! Above is the photographic evidence! You guys offended me so much! Post #79 was my last post in this debate, of which is yet to be debunked. It uses high school physics to prove that World Trade Center building 7 was demolished using a controlled demolition.
  3. I gather from a couple posts above that both Mike E and William Scherk are satisfied with NIST's explanation of the timespan over which building 7 fell at freefall acceleration. Here is NIST's explanation of the free fall: I made the relevant text discussing the free fall bold and red. Here's my criticism: "indicating negligible support from the structure below" Indeed. Freefall means NO support whatsoever, as if nothing was below it supporting it whatsoever. "This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above." "consistent with the structural analysis model"... ok what is the structural analysis model? Here's NIST's response: we can't tell you because it "might jeopardize public safety". That's a joke. I would think it would be important for engineers to know how steel supports can completely and utterly lose all of their upward support and allow whatever is above them to freefall. Isn't it more of a public safety hazard to have existing and new buildings be built that might have the same kind of flaw in their structural steel that would allow the upper portion of the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds? "the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above"... I accept that exterior columns bucking could cause them to lose thier ability to support the loads from the structure above. What I don't accept is that they would completely and utterly lose all of their ability to support the loads, where their support is non-existant, allowing the stucture above to fall at freefall. It almost seems like this sentence (starting with "This is consistent") isn't referring to the sentence right before it ("During Stage 2, the"). Instead maybe referring to the first sentence in the paragraph. Here we are just guessing at the intent of the author. Maybe its a little misleading, but I'm guessing such an excuse could pass in lawyerspeak/law. But whatever. As Far As I Know, we don't have access to their model, because again it "might jeopardize public safety". Instead, they only give us images and videos of their model's output of the initial portion of the collapse. And the funny thing is, their model isn't even consistent with what is shown on video. And more funny, but you'd have to take the engineer's word for it, but he says the NIST model's next move would have been to fall over to the side, and hence that is why they only give us the initial portion of the collapse and stop there. ae911thruth.org Engineer's response to NIST models and NIST freefall response. ==================== Its just plain and simple: steel structures do not allow their top portions to fall at freefall accelleration for 2.25 seconds. Somehow the building's steel structure was demolished, not by slow bending, but by instantaneous & simultaneos "cuts" accross all of the steel supports in a floor at a time. There's nothing that does that except for well timed & controlled explosive demolitions.
  4. Brant, Oh, I said it in post 14 too. Thanks for the correction. I must be a really evil person for having a dark sense of humor. Anyways, it still stands that those 3x people lack blood on them when the guy's supposed legs were vaporized. ============= ============= Edit: Any idea if the .223 rounds were Full Metal Jacket or Hollow Point?
  5. For the record, my blowjob comment was a sarcastic comment on my part to help me relieve my anger caused by William Scherk's post #20 where he used ad hominem attacks against me and displayed strawman graphic pictures to argue against my pictures that show lack of blood on Jeff (the amputee), the red sweater woman, and the grey hooded sunglasses man, who were both sitting right there between Jeff's "legs" and touching Jeff's "legs".
  6. Even NIST admitted building 7 fell at freefall in thier final report.
  7. Selene, People propose doing all sorts of nefarius things to other groups of people. I guess that would add to something we should watch out for... but here I'm more concerned about physical/engineering and biological evidence captured on camera. That's all I've got to go on personally, I wasn't there. Everything else is just he said she said, which I can never trust. For example, I look at the collapse of building 7... And I wonder how office fires could cause a symetric freefall collapse.
  8. Mikee: "And the motive is money? They have complete control over all the money they see fit to print already." Sure they can print it, but they need reason to print it. They make money by acting as an intermediary, they need more spending in order to be an intermediate more. 9/11's fear helped keep Americans motivated to increase/maintain military spending and attack terrorist groups in the middle east and overthrow Saddam. 9/11 also destroyed evidence of Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion. 9/11 also resulted in the Patriot act, naked body scanners at airports, etc, many things that increased survailence, which reduces citizen security and financial anonymity. Should our government really have the info on all financial transactions and balances? Whether or not 9/11 was orchestrated by factions of the US Gov, theres no question the US Gov benefited from it. Jonathan, In public there is the chance that non in-group entities might collect evidence that contradicts the in-group story.
  9. Wolf DeVoon, SPG is reference to a cult classic censorship police force? Thanks for catching my "Australian" typo... was using my cell phone and pressed the autocomplete without looking close enough. Derek, People don't value labor in itself. They potentially value the outcome of labor, if it is predicted to result in the attainment of a desired consumer good. Hence it is the outcome of particular kinds of labor that are valued, not the labor itself. That people are paid hourly wages is just a simplification to reduce the costs of monitoring/tracking overhead.
  10. Derek, Gold is not "labor backed". The price of gold is set by the market value demand of people who want to increase thier marginal savings intersecting with the supply of people who want to reduce their marginal savings. Miners, smelters, mints adjust their output quantity based on whether they can make profit by doing so. If the price of gold goes down, some producers who were previously only slightly profitable now would have losses if they produced, so they cease production. If the gold price was based on labor, then I could purify gold out of seawater (an extremely expensive process) and sell my gold at a much higher price than say a traditional geological gold digging mine. But thats nonsense... why would people buy gold at a high price from me when they could buy gold at a lower price from a traditional miner? Its one of the fundamental truths discovered in Austrian economics that previous labor put into a resource has nothing to do with its market value. ====== Except for bitcoin (which has the potential to complete and overthrow the FRN money monopoly), those local currencies are just extended forms of dollars. They are all dollar backed 1:1, or at least claimed to be. Hence they are not competing with FRN, they are FRN. Bitcoin is a new money technology that I have high hopes for. I think it has a good potential to end the system of fiat monopoly money.
  11. Brant, The arguments that people don't have such monstrous character, and that horrific secrets could not conceivably be kept by large numbers of people were made. My above post was to prove otherwise.
  12. More on the question of human nature... Historical fact that people can form groups where they develop strong bonds with eachother as being "in" the group. They then persecute others who are not in the group, having the mentality that those not in the group are not given any respect of property rights whatsoever, just playthings and tools. This goes from middle/high school bullies to fraternaty rivelry to... wikipedia: Nazi human experimentation Although I think the later EXTREME case generally only would occur when food is in low supply, in which case living people who are not in the in group are just more mouths to feed.
  13. Mikee, "Believing this is possible is decidedly a different view of human nature than an objectivist one where malignant evil is the exception not the rule. It has occurred to me that you don't really believe this but believe a revolution is necessary and are promoting ideas that lead to revolution sooner rather than later. Hm, no, deception is not in my playbook. I'd rather be a nobody and raise my family in safety then... if I was into deceiving people then I would probably would move my way up in the ranks of the Federal Reserve & big bank revolving door. At this point I don't think a revolution is possible. The only thing I call for is the end of the monopoly enforcement of US dollars. But I don't even call for this very loudly, only between myself and other intellectuals. Here's my worldview of human nature (stated elsewhere): humans fill niches just like any other form of life, only humans fill new potential niches faster than any other organism due to our higher intellegence. Humans are only "good" (following NIOF principal = good) to the extent that they individually benefit (benefit = life's goal: successful reproduction) from specialization and trade rather than initation of force. This follows much more closely to evolution than any Randian dream of what human nature might be. The technological state of our society where there was a significant vulnerability of gold to government theft. Eventually in our nation's history elite manipulators found there way into key power positions in our government. They stole the gold and ever since have had increadible control over our society, basically being able to fabricate as much money as they want to buy people and have bought people do whatever they want. The elite manipulator niche has been flourishing. At the same time, generosity, prosperity, and eventually the duty ethic manipulation lead to vast expansion of a needy lower class of citizens who have no need to think, only need to accept handouts from the elite manipulators. There are not enough elite producers, nor enough smart poeple in the world to combat all of the above manipuation. There is just too many of them (elite manipuators and needy sheep). Austrian economics has no chance vs Keynesian economics in this scenario, because when people fail to think for themselves, they have no way to differentiate between sound economic arguments with promises that there will be prosperity if we let people keep what they work for versus promises of government handouts. Then, there is a strong resounding question I would ask: isn't it very possible that a significant portion of the human population doesn't care that much what their living condition is, so long as they get their basic needs met (live long enough to successfuly reproduce)... such people wouldn't even want prosperity, they would gladly live at the expense of others if that means they don't have to work nor think. Its similar to why religion (worldview manipuation) is so popular, although fiat money enforcement is way more profitable than tithe collection. In here Objectivism tries to combat this manipulation... but again here the manipulators promises and the threat of hell trick are much more convincing to the sheep than Objectivist "this life is the only one we get" objective worldview. And the manipulator's tithe collection is much more profitable enabling them to spend much more on convincing people to become new members than us. Coming to the conclusion that Christianity is a manipulation... and coming to the conclusion that 9/11 is a manipulation... are the same thing, only the question of how manipulative people can be and how manipulatable people can be is scaled on not an all or nothing, but rather a continual scale.
  14. Derek, If the Feds didn't enforce a monopoly on Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), new banks would open that would offer gold as money. Then consumers would chose to hold gold money rather than FRNs in their bank accounts, hence they'd switch to the new gold banks. So basically the system would change due to consumer demand and competition. Right now there isn't competition: the FRN is fiat, a government enforced monopoly. ================= BNotes: http://baltimoregreencurrency.org/faq%C2'> BNotes are a dollar backed. There is no banking infrastructure around BNotes: you can't deposit them in a bank, write checks, take out a loan, deposit in a money market account etc. Disney Dollars, berkshares, bay area bucks: Just like BNotes: dollar backed, with no banking deposit & loan infrastructure. Sand dollars: You mean like the sea creatures? Time dollars: looks like some marxist non-existant currency that beleives that hours worked digging and refilling holes is equivalent to hours worked manufacturing consumer goods... as if effort = market value. Bitcoin: New distributed digital ledger. Banks not needed for transactions. Currency is still to young/unstable for there to be a loan market. Since no banks are required, and its distributed, the Feds can't really shut it down or use the excuse of "protecting depositors" in order to shut down the non-extant banks. The big banks with close ties to the Feds (essentially controlling the Federal Reserve infact, revolving door) refuse to do business with bitcoin related business. No bitcoin exchange (where you can post buy and sell orders at your own chosen price) have been allowed to come into existence in the US. Bitcoin is different... its not gold backed... its just a distributed ledger.
  15. Wolf DeVoon, FRBNY Federal Reserve Bank of New York. FOMC Federal Open Market Committee... what did you want to say about them?
  16. Ad hominem and call for censorship. Necessary work = look at pictures and think for oneself rather then allowing others such as william scherk to think for you.
  17. Wolf DeVoon, Not sure what the Reverse Repo is exactly, nor what is going on here. My guess is that some people are doing some financial shinanigans at the end of each quarter in order to make their books look better during some mandatory audit. Do you have a link to a better explanation?
  18. Brant, Long term is yea, over a person's lifetime, say 20 to 100 years. If I had a million dollars in gold I'd probably also have a good amount of property to bury it in. Definately not store the gold in a bank nor GLD fund etc... because owning the gold is for the expressed purpose of minimizing counterparty risk. S&P 500 is worthwhile diversificaiton asset. S&P does have risks though... its embedded in the unstable financial system of today, where you own it through a bank rather than having direct stock certificates. I wouldn't suggest diversifying into bonds right now though. Its not all or nothing when it comes to investment choices. Diversification is a good idea. I wouldn't like to have to choose one or the other.
  19. Your pictures are strawmen. How about showing the pictures I linked to? "Here's some blood for you, you ghoul" Ad hominem "This lady lost her legs. What do you say to her, Dean? What do you say to the other people maimed? What do you say to the witnesses and victims of the explosions?" I say: Sorry, next time use more smoke and more fake blood. Smoke to screen from non-member video captures like these. Try to get some blood that quickly dries and turns dark brown like real blood. Shouldn't that lady in red sweater have more blood on her after giving the double amputee Jeff a blowjob (or whatever she was doing down there in his crotch)? Wow Jeff has some really wide hips! (Or maybe his right fake prosthetic wasn't attached yet?) Oh, he didn't bleed that much after losing his legs. That explains it! But wait, shouldn't he have bled more? Hmm. Where's the lady in the red sweater? She was tended to first and taken away in a stretcher... before Jeff? What??? yea, lets tend to all of the other people first before Jeff. He looks fine to me, cause somehow his "legs" stopped bleeding. Where's the trail of blood? Oh, the cowboy hero is taughtly pulling the "tourniquet", which is previnging the blood from flowing onto the pavement. Cowboy has blood on his hands. Jeff... where's the blood on your hands? Shouldn't you have some more blood on yourself after laying in a pool of your own blood? You did a great job keeping your shirt clean! Funny that they took the lady in red & white away on a strecher, before the double amputee on a wheelchair. Amazing that he has the strength and awareness to balance himself upright on that chair all by himself after he dumped all that blood out onto the pavement from his leg arteries. Oh wait, he didn't bleed that much for some reason, so he is probably fine. Where's the blood on red sweater lady here? Look at the shrapnel holes in the red and black shirt girl on the right. Oh, the holes are only in her shirt, not her arm. She's got a pretty clean looking sock given the apparent condition of the back of her calf. Her right leg isn't dripping any blood. In your photo with the red sweater lady on stretcher, look, lets apply a yellow shirt around her thigh! Where's the blood on the grey hooded guy's hand after helping Jeff? Where's the blood you showed of the red sweater lady in the stretcher in these video snapshots? More photos
  20. More on this offtopic: I agree. This is an important point. But it is besides the point when asking the question of "What is the free market (Objectivist) system of money and banking?" Here's my thoughts on this subject... Gold stored in private banks is simply too vulnerable to theft by governments. Military power versus centralized store of wealth is simply too great given our current technological situation. I disagree that human nature is "good". Human nature is only "good" to the extent that people _benefit_ from specialization and trade, which is not God given nor a universal law of physics. Evolution -> "benefit" means increase attainment of the goal of successful reproduction. Hence elite manipulators and complacent welfare queens. Hence given our current technology/context, I don't think we'd go back to using gold for money. The elite manipulators and welfare queens are too powerful. Gold can still be used as a long term store of wealth.
  21. Option A: The most honest way 1. Stop deficit spending, revert the federal government to only defending US soil and evident retaliation (no social security, war on drugs, policemen of the world, etc). 2. Pay off the debt by taxes 3. Buy some amount of gold, and regularly have independent audits of the amount stored. 4. Restore convertability of dollars to gold, redefine the dollar as number of dollars Federal Reserve has created / kilograms of gold stored. This might end up being something like one US dollar IS 1mg of gold. 5. Allow private banks to issue their own deposit receipts for "dollars" (dollars are now an amount of gold) If #1 and #2 are performed incrementally over 20 to 30 years, it would be the least shocking to the economy. If the Federal Reserve reduced its "dollars issued" back to pre-2008 levels (800 billion instead of current 4100 billion) when restoring convertability (#4), that would be even more honest. Option B: The less honest and more shocking way 1. Resume permitting banks to transact, loan, etc in gold backed accounts, where the the currency unit is something like "milligrams (mg) of gold". At today's gold prices, a mg of gold is worth about $0.04. Allow the banks to store their own gold in their own vaults, issue their own electronic digital ledger/currency (and paper redeemable notes if they want). This would be permitted in parallel with the current "dollar", so we'd have two currencies at the same time. Allow international trade of the gold too. 2. Over a few years, smart & big money will move to the gold, once banks are established and working and busineses begin transacting in the new gold currency. Given that people are holding fewer Federal Reserve (Fed) notes (current dollar = FRN), the FRN would lose market purchasing power, making it easy for the US Gov to repay its FRN debt, but at the same forcing the US Gov to balance its budget, since few would want to buy FRN bonds, and since gold bonds would ask a much higher interest rate. We couldn't predict how quickly people would switch over to using the gold currency, nor how fast the FRN would lose value, hence nor how fast the US Gov would have to balance its budget. Hence its more "shocking". Its less honest because its basically a final default on the US's old 1913 dollar debt... the crime was already mostly done back in 1933 (Executive Order 6102: domestic gold theft) and 1973 (Nixon shock: international gold theft). I agree that central banks don't want to give up their monopoly power over issuence of money. They like to be able to give themselves money that the sheep are forced to transact in (and hence work for and save with, giving the fiat market purchasing power). I agree that "fiat" doesn't mean valueless. Fiat means "by government decree", basically, by government decree if you try to create a bank that issues checks, notes, or credit with anything other than US FRN (dollars), then you will be thrown in jail and your bank assets will be confinscated. Fiat has value due to the increased productivity of individuals due to specializatin and trade, combined with that the fiat is an enforced monopoly on money, that people must transact and save in that currency in order to benefit from specialization and trade. Given a certain supply (monetary base) of fiat units, and that the fiat is an enforced monopoly, and some ratio of benefit to specialization and trade rather than doing everything oneself... The number of units of fiat people want to save and work for each day is the final component of the determination of the market purchasing power of the fiat. Agreed, although I wouldn't say Germany has benefitted much yet: If Greece, Spain, etc just default instead of paying their euro debts, then Germany basically just financed them for no gain. But if Germany forces them to pay back their euro dept (without inflating it away), then yea, Germany benefits. Gold is not a currency because the powers that be (controllers of Federal Reserve, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc) will influence the US Gov to confinscate the gold from anyone who tries to use it as a currency, whether foreign or demestic. "Gold standard via the central banking model" -> thats a contradiction. Gold is essentially a decentrallized money. A la Austrian economics: if gold is "sucked in", that would mean that foreign countries would almost run out of gold, and then a trade balance would be established; If gold is "sucked out", that would mean that domestically gold would almost run out, and then a trade balance would be established. "There is not enough gold in the world": well yes, not at gold current market valuation in the context where the Fed's friends will confinscate... but in a context where instead governments didn't steal from gold backed banks, the value of gold would scale to market supply/demand market value. "Other commodities and assets would need to be put into a "basket."" No, not need, but surely the gov could permit silver and other assets to be banked, and also allow baskets... whatever the free market decides to use. "Even if myriad countries had any [gold] to [switch to gold backed banking]--most don't." Having an existing store of gold is not necessary. Gold can be accuired through trade. New currencies can be established over time (Option A) or in parallel (Option B). "Let it be priced in multiples of cost of production and you'll have an environmental mining catastrophe." I'm not sure what you mean. "Let it be priced" -> indicates some government forced/ensured peg. "multiples of cost of production" -> so you are saying that 1kg of newly mined gold should be "priced" to be equal to say 2x, 2kg of previously minted gold? That could potentially result in an environmental catastrophe, or more likely, the government that was supplying all of the gold to the mining companies for this transaction would go bankrupt. This is a strawman attacking a nonsensical non-Austrian policy. I'm not suggesting a peg. I'm suggesting switching to transacting in units of gold.
  22. Selene, What do you mean "internet speak"? I read about some guy who requested FOIA on the pentagon videos... the pentagon released one video, but it only has one frame showing maybe what hit it, and its really poor resolution/quality, so its hard to tell what it was. But yea, I guess Jesse isn't really demanding information from the government by making the youtube video. FOIA for black box release doesn't really work when the FBI claims they never found them. The Building 7 collapse is claimed by the feds to have been caused by office fires. The videos show building 7 collapsed at freefall acceleration symetrically into its own footprint. Please explain how office fires can do this. Explosion before collapse of twin tower building. (from NIST FOIA request)
  23. Selene, What I remembered I saw by his rhetoric: He is suggesting the fed is covering things up, that there is more to the story than what we were told, that the fed's story doesn't hold up to available evidence. He is demanding the fed release information that is being withheld, so that we can better figure out what happened. I fail to see how demanding information that is being withheld is in any way disrespectful for people who died on 9/11. I fail to see how suggesting that US government factions were responsible is in any way disrespectful to the people that died. Instead what I figure you are feeling is your stomach launching up to your mouth as you fall down the rabbit hole of what such a conclusion would imply. That the media and Federal government could be so corruptly manipulated by the powers that be. Emotionaly, you attach this feeling to "truthers" because their questions cause you to feel this way. Saying that such is disrespectful to innocent victims is a manipulation used by shills and cop out by sheep. Edit: Thanks. I'm doing ok. I really should be working more, I've been slacking lately. The recent behedding mentioned above kind of made me want to talk about this stuff... hence me bringing this thread back up from a month of dust.
  24. Derek, Free market alternative: First, let me state the primary purposes of a bank in the free market: 1. To facilitate trasfer of money. Basically, if you carried a lot of money on you to perform large trades, then you'd be at risk of theft the whole time you had the money and traveled with it. For international and long distance trade, banks can settle with eachother over a longer timespan with other transactions, facilitating quick transfers of money for long distance trades. 2. To securely store money. Holding money on your person or your own property has risk. "Don't keep all your eggs in one basket." 3. To provide loans for people who want stuff now rather than later but can't or don't want to pay for the entire market price immediately. Banks charge interest to cover risk of default and profit (the profit component is limited by competition with other lenders). 4. To provide money market accounts and CDs for people who are willing to allow their deposits to be loaned out to others for longer periods of time... given that such people exist who would rather earn the interest offered by the bank than spend their money now. In the free market, depositors could look for third party insurance for their deposits. So if their bank defaults, they could lose everything (no government bailout), unless they had insurance with a good insurance company. The fear that a bank might be corrupt and spend the depositor money in secret or make too many bad loans is what causes people to open up bank accounts with different private banks. This is the primary reason why banks wouldn't attain monopoly status in the free market. Individuals would also choose different banks to work with due to locality, loan policies, fee schedules, etc. But there are incentives to join the same bank as other people, for example, if you transfer money to someone at the same bank, the transaction is instantaneous (no intra-bank settling of reserves). The free market might have 100% gold backed accounts... but surely that would result in larger fees. I'm not against there being unallocated or fractional reserve accounts, so long as the bank is honest about what the fractional reserve is and what kind of loan policy they have. Bitcoin doesn't require banks for feature #1 and #2 above. #3 and #4 would require banks. Storing gold is a security concern, even for banks. Governments, thieves, and mobs have proven in history to plunder both foriegn and domestic banks. ========= I think I've answered your first question (what is the alternative, and what would cause there to be a diversity of banks (decentralized) instead of there being a monopoly in the free market) Now for your second question, whats the difference between decentralized issuence of money and central? 1. When a decentralized bank defaults, only the depositors of that bank suffer. Responsibility and losses are all directly risked by the willing customers. When the central bank defaults everyone who uses the fiat money suffers due to the loss in purchasing power of their inflated money. Increasing the money supply ("quantatative easing" and devaluation (when gold backed)) is a fractional default. 2. With decentralization, you have competition, where banks compete to offer the best interest rates and lowest fees. Interest rates are determined by free market preference of needing consumer goods now versus investing in longer term producer capital. With centralization, there is much less incentive to improve efficiency, offer different kinds of services, or offer better service. More on interest rates: Right now for example, we are all stuck with one option of being able to take really big loans at a low interest rate (which is nice), but low interest rates are coming package dealt with 10% annual inflation and no chance of earning much interest on money market accounts, CDs, and bonds. Basically this is causing the evaporation of savings and longer term producer capital. Why is there little manufacturing jobs in the US? Why do we buy cheap stuff at walmart instead of more durable goods? Because the interest rate is forced too low on us by the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money, which is enforced by their paid off buddies in the Federal Government. Centralization of banking gives the government (or government privilaged monopoly) waaaaaay too much power. Basically you are giving the owners of the centralized bank the power to fabricate as much money as they want to buy whatever they want, including buy out the few elected officials in the government. Minor point here: if we had more heads/seat count in the House of Representatives and Congress, it would be much more costly for the bankers and corrupt businesses to lobby. Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." He was no dimwit. His legacy is, no question, using their ability to fabricate money to rule the world. See E-Gold and NORFED. If you try to compete then you will be prosecuted for money laundering and/or "counterfieting" and get all of your gold/silver taken from you. Correct, the Fed isnot being run by the government. Its the other way around: The government is being run by the Fed. Yes, private banks might inflate their money supply, no problem, as long as they don't default (or fractionally default). And even if they do default, its a local problem for their customers. Customers of other banks don't get screwed. If one bank goes down and this causes a chian reaction of defaults... still, this is better than FDIC where everyone who holds dollars is forced to pay for a bank's default (through bailout->inflation).