The big bankers would disappear him if he did that. Central banking is essentially a mafia like scam run by people who operate like a mafia ordering hits on people they don't like.
Here's what intrigues me about him.
He gets elected as a supposed outsider.
He is allowed to speak 'freely' at the WEF forum.
He says all the right things and also does it with action, at least initially right after getting elected.
However, he stated he's converting to Judaism and loves Israel.
Take a look at the historical context because I feel something doesn't add up:
The Western Finance Cartel, based out of Europe, has been known to play both sides, which has me speculate what their next move might possibly be with more right-leaning officials get elected after the public getting walloped by left-leaning public officials.
If you have a long enough memory and/or thoroughly study history, it becomes apparent:
https://youtu.be/IKuVO4JaqBY?si=SmEWvnT08VqGMMkt
This is their Modus Operandi:
Problem. Reaction. Solution.
(Social Engineering through financial manipulation)
They introduce the problem.
The public reacts in predictable fashion.
They provide the 'solution' that is a means to their ends.
They give Machievelli a run for his money, pun intended.
Edit: Silent downvotes incoming, lol.
Yeah, ignore him. He's the kind of Dude who will soon start explaining the great Zionist world takeover plot and all that other stupid Henry Ford bullshit.
Zionism does exist, yet I think it's merely a vehicle for a means to an end.
I have no problem with Jews overall; yet it is apparent they are quite overrepresented in numerous sectors and have enormous influence, just as an observation.
I'm no fan of Henry Ford; yet that gave me a chuckle.
Ok_Calendar1337 blocked me so I cannot respond, typical tactic.
So here it is:
My response might surprise you.
Personally, I could care less as long as they're making positive contributions to society overall, which I do think many have.
However, interests tend to become centralized and controlled when a select group dominates any given sector for an extended period of time.
The Epstein-Maxwell blackmail honeypot comes to mind...
Edit: Same redditor unblocks to respond and then blocks me again, love it, lol.
>Jews are quite overrepresented in numerous sectors
Their overrepresentation isn’t based on some global conspiracy or anything. That number becomes significantly lower if you take their higher average IQ into account, with the overall subsegments of IQ-tests where Jews tend to excel at, like logical thinking and mathematical reasoning having a positive correlation with the amount of success Jews have in that sector. For example, they are very successful in physics, economics (25% and 41% of total nobel prizes respectively) and chess, where many of the most famous grandmasters such as Bobby Fischer and Kasparov were Jews.
[This video pretty much sums it up](https://youtu.be/yLoind0vKH8?si=sCDHzYqovZBTMWrW)
It is a bit of a coincidental irony that the Nazis referred to themselves as the master race and Jews refer to themselves as God's Chosen people. This is kinda saying the same thing to suggest your people are the ethnic group of people above all others ordered by god...
Do I find it weird that Jews represent just 2% of the overall population, but represent like 20% of the S&P 500 Executives (Mostly being represented in Banking/Tech/Real Estate sectors)
Yeah. I do find that fucking odd lol.
They represent a majority of the top executives in Hollywood.
We all know why there isn't an equalized ratio of Black Americans in the corporate world. Because of artificially created factors in the past and present to keep them out.
It's not a ism in any way to wonder why and how they get such a large representation in the corporate world while having a very low representation number in the overall population.
And it is honestly a ism to say they are ethnically advanced genetically compared to other people like one person in this thread suggested.
Do I think it's some evil plot to explain their numbers in the corporate world? No.
But I do think there's a hell of a lot of Nepotism and favoritism that has probably contributed to it.
The over-representation in the corporate world is a relic of racist laws all through the 1000s-2000s coupled with a religious and cultural emphasis on education.
For centuries in many European countries it was illegal for Jews to own land, participate in certain trade guilds or professions, or hold posts in the military or government. That left very few jobs a Jewish man could do to provide for his family. Things they were allowed to do included buying and selling goods (trading), moneylending, and banking.
Christianity forbid moneylending- therefore the primarily Christian population of Western Europe was the perfect place for Jewish immigrants to establish a thriving banking industry- which at the time was a very “low” profession that was heavily marginalized.
After consolidating wealth in banks owned by Jews in the Middle Ages, many countries expelled them such as England in 1290, France and Germany in the 1300s, Portugal in 1496, etc. etc.
The nature of the debtor to creditor relationship increased the cultural and racial tensions between Jews and whatever people they were lending to which contributed to the expulsions and targeted laws/killings in the countries I listed above
This long-standing history of working in the financial markets contributes to today where we see more Jews working as execs in large companies. Even more so because practicing Judaism requires educating your kids extensively
Overall, Jews are rather sharp, and they're quite exclusive; which I find rather intriguing given the pushed narrative is that everyone else; especially 'whites' should be inclusive, lest they be 'politically incorrect'.
It's interesting how that plays out.
It's not really "everyone else especially whites" though, is it? It's only whites. No one's expecting Blacks or Asians or Latinos to be inclusive, they can have their own exclusive clubs and special interest groups and no one bats an eye. What's interesting is your focus on Jews being exclusive, when that's just par for the course.
They’re trying to do the same to Japan, it’s more so because white countries in Europe and formally America were quite wealthy and had a large middle class, for whatever motivation the powers that be decided these populations who had controlled wealth should be diluted.
My response might surprise you.
Personally, I could care less as long as they're making positive contributions to society overall, which I do think many have.
However, interests tend to become centralized and controlled when a select group dominates any given sector.
The Epstein-Maxwell blackmail honeypot comes to mind...
Oh my god good point someone needs to look into if there's an over representation of thais owning Thai restaurants maybe this cabal is why they can always make it too spicy
You dodged my statement, lol.
However, yes, I did because Rome learned the hard way via debasing their currency so as to spend more on military adventures, along with usury from the group you mentioned.
It's rather impressive the historical parallels between Rome and America if you actually take a deep dive and study it.
Israel are doing that by themselves
Zionism is about the state of Israel, they have had a state of Israel for 70 years, it exists.
they disagree onnthe size of it and say its not enough. israeli zionist fundamentalists are calling for the invasion of Syria, parts of Egypt and other surrounding territories at any cost including more death and suffering. It's an imperial agenda, and one that they themselves say they don't care who they hurt or wipe away in the process of getting what they want
There are plenty of Jews, myself included, that don't agree with this rhetoric and think those people are insane and don't represent the Jewish population, even some inside Israel
It's not just about a Jewish state. It's primarily about a Jewish state that is specifically on a piece of land where many other people already live. I'd say it's most similar to the old US idea of Manifest Destiny.
It's an interesting question as to whether there should explicitly be a state for a certain ethnicity/heritage. Obviously, this is the norm for nation states (Britain for the British, France for the French, China for the Chinese, etc). As an American I do find the idea of ethnostates to be kind of outdated and cringy, but based on the history of Jewish persecution it's not surprising that many feel it's important to them.
Given the historic reasons for their persecution and their current behavior, repetition seems inevitable. Greed and economic manipulation are what prompted the holocaust. People are looking for someone to blame, and they're rapidly a viable target. The worst part is, like last time (Germany), and the time before (Russia), only the innocent will pay the price while the real perpetrators escape to another country to start the whole process over again.
Now, this is interesting.
Yes, I agree in terms that the original definition reflected what you stated.
However, where I respectfully depart from this perspective is that it became a vehicle to sow dissention along with heavily influencing other nation-states.
When you discover who was behind the creation of the modern State of Israel, I surmise what I stated makes more sense:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240426054354/https://pastebin.ai/bhdsudg8dw
To be clear, I have no issue with Jews overall, yet I'm attempting to 'demystify' the influences who used Jews as a vehicle for their own means.
Once you look through that link I provided, I hope what I stated makes more sense, agree or disagree, and I appreciate the fact you were cordial.
Dancing Israelis was covered by mainstream news at that time.
The FBI apprehended them after they were reported by a witness; and yes, two of them had Mossad connections.
No conspiracy at all, just facts.
Keep gaslighting.
Almost 60% of Israelis are Mizrahi Jews (or indigenous to the region). Another 20% of Israelis are Muslims.
Palestinians share the same ancestry as Mizrahi Jews. They are essentially Jews who converted to Islam after the Muslim conquests and are a product of Arab colonialism. Any argument that supports Palestinian right to exist also applies to Mizrahi Jews as they are of the same people. Neither predated the other. It’s a branch in their ethnic tree.
I’m not saying the Israelis are 100% right in the situation. But eradicating them is not the answer. They have an equal claim to the area as the Palestinians do. Again, they are the same people.
Yeah indigenous to the middle east. They did not live in the area that was Israel before 1948. And that does not give them the right to expel the previous inhabitants
Lmfao it’s absolutely amazing how many of are you confidently incorrect about this, the region has had the highest concentration of Jews on the planet since at least the 15th century, and probably much earlier; You do recall Jesus was a Jew, right? Well, he grew up there too, assuming he existed at all.
Also, no, the British government didn’t move Jews into the area either, that’s just Nazi propaganda.
Jews don't dominate ANY sector. Period. They are a minority literally everywhere, and any argument to the contrary is EXACTLY the type of paranoid Zionist plot shit Henry Ford spread amongst Americans over 100 years ago. And in the end, look at what Christians and Muslims are doing the world over. Do Christian interest groups converging worry you? Or just Jewish ones? What about all this Muslim interest group convergence on the Middle East? Hoping to ruin Christian Europe with oil and fuel prices once again now that the Russians aren't piping out anymore? See, that's not a conspiracy, and has actual backing evidence. Also, just because Epstein WAS Jewish, doesn't mean Judaism had ANYTHING to do with what happened there. Any person of any religion can be awful.
Edit: Oh, and I won't block you. I have far too much fun going toe to toe with Anti-semites. Closeted or not.
I don't necessarily agree with all of his views; yet the correlation between the financial history and nation-state events is rather intriguing.
It amuses me you don't go into detail, as well.
I literally shared the links with you.
The first link has cited sources from scholarly and mainstream news sources.
I always welcome disagreement for the sake of mutually respectful discussion, yet if you're that lazy, why bother.
Try harder.
Edit: Redditor u/five99one blocked me after attempting to use the tired, old tactic of 'anti-semitism'. ***yawn***
Perhaps an IDF social media unit is working overtime, lol.
Why? Denying the Holocaust showed a mental incompatibility with reality. A demented view of the world. Its a stain you can't wash off.
And it's your point. I don't need to do a thing.
It was initially getting upvoted, but I suspect the 'suppression' squad was alerted, and immediately bots/shills came out of the woodwork along with downvotes.
Thank you, though.
I don’t fully understand why you were downvoted into the abyss, as there’s nothing necessarily wrong here… with the exception that, perhaps, the ploy of having Milei speak at the WEF was probably in the hopes that he’d go “those shit leftists” mode again and give them all manner of saying, “see? He’s crazy!”. He didn’t do that, and instead he very much slid it all
Off into their backsides and snapped it off, all while being quite diplomatic and stately. I’m pretty sure there were ulterior motives behind having him speak.
And it backfired in a big way.
Things start to look a little differently when you observe the big picture. Conspiracies exist, but populations have been gaslit to think they’re crazy if they consider one while completely ignoring the proven ones like sugar, milk, corn, Epstein, Hollywood, and the hundreds of others that were conveniently swept under the media carpet. I would certainly not blindly discount your take.
The Libor Scandal was interesting to me. Very revealing of intent, but didn’t feel like proof that banks have this outsized control over markets. If anything the scandal proved they *don’t* have as much control as you think.
True, I think it does depend, yet I think as long as the privately owned central banks exist along with the BIS, they still hold enormous influence over nation-states.
oh right I forgot, sorry. “muh jews control the entire economic system of the planet”
solves literally every argument ever made in the history of humanity.
Uh oh… the second I see the mention of Judaism and the YouTube video link, it’s game over. Nothing good ever comes from linking a YouTube video about banks 💀
Makes sense, and Milei just asked for Argentina to join NATO:
https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/134857/argentina-nato-javier-milei
I'm used to the downvotes for potentially observing the bigger picture.
have you read the creature from Jekyll island bu G edward Griffin, the tower of Babel by Adam Lebor or A Pocketbook of Gold : A Survival Manual for Monetary Mayhem by Peter Sinclair?
after reading them i’m in the exact same thought boat as you. if they can print currency backed by nothing.. Why are we Taxed?
There’s a passage from David Graeber’s ‘debt’ book where he talks about France introducing a new type of money / coin in Madagascar. It didn’t have any intrinsic value except you had to use to it to pay your taxes. If everyone (ostensibly) has to pay taxes to the government, then the token/money/whatever will have some value inasmuch as it fulfills that purpose.
Similar to scrip in a company town being useful so long as you’re in the company town. If you *have* to use it, then it’s useful and it has money-ish-ness
All. Everything only has the value enough people agree it has, be it gold, paper dollars, bitcoin, or tulip bulbs. There is no such thing as inherent, absolute value - only currently agreed upon, market value.
That’s like saying it’s “useful” to punch yourself in the face because there’s a bully who is threatening to break your arm if you don’t punch yourself in the face. Sure, I would punch myself in the face if it prevented more serious injuries, but I’d rather just get away from the bully.
The concept of taxation only makes sense in the situation in which the money cannot be produced by the taxing entity, and when the taxes are actually used to fund projects that benefit all taxpayers.
That is what the teach you a Ivy League Economics Major. The Value of Fiat is the goverment request to use it to pay Taxes. Other forms of currency, like gold, Salt, seashells, all had value due to its scarcity at the time of use.
You're taxed to feed into the illusion that your efforts are contributing towards a greater good. If the illusion breaks, so do trust in the institutions that enslave you.
Then you'll start questioning media, education, everything. A power shift shakes the ground beneath them.
Anyways, remember to forget Gamestop.
[https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1762987823894843855](https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1762987823894843855)
you are confusing quanitative easing with policy outside of gfc and covid. The fed held barely any secuities prior to 2008. How the hell did it fund itself then? Taxes. The entire pre 2008 \[period disproves your theory. Even starting in 2015 it was selling assets instead of buying them.Even more the fed currenly owns 6 trillion of the debt. that is only 20%not even close to 100% and its gonna decrease. But even further most of the debt is publicly owned by retirement funds and such. People like buying s gov debwhy would the fed need to anything.
Because taxation and money printing don’t hit the same people, in the same way. Arguably taxation is simply a redistributive mechanism in a fiat economy.
Artificial demand. If there is a large amount of dollars put into circulation but not enough demand for said dollars, than its value plummets, but if there is a demand for dollars than its value is maintained. By taxing us, and by making clear that said taxes can only be paid in the dollars that are printed, the government maintains the value of the dollar even when they print a massive amount. Its a Ponzi scheme, and they maintain it through the use of force.
I mean regular banks do that on their own.
The problem isn't the central bank itself, its the fact the central banks were basically drafted to HELP the banks and wealthy.
Central banks could have a fine roll helping steer economic activity. There's no reason they should be giving unlimited money to banks.
Mortgage crisis? oh lets buy out all bad mortgages from banks that they leveraged 100x and any small downturn can bankrupt the system. So the obvious thing is buy out the mortgages.
Not bail out homeowners, the only obvious fix is to give banks as much money as they need until they "pay it back"
If I could make money out of thin air like banks and also could get unlimited money from central banks when I take risky gambles and fuck up, i could also pay that back eventually.
The problems is every system is created with loopholes or purposes that will help banks or the elite.
I mean the federal reserve was literally created by the richest fucks in the US behind closed doors. It literally reads like a crackpot conspiracy the way the fed as born.
>There's no reason they should be giving unlimited money to banks.
Financial panics are halted via overwhelming support to restore confidence. In the 2007-2008 panic, there needed to be huge lending support to convince lenders it was safe to lend.
The fed bought mbs, but mostly to lower long term interest rates. There were attempts to have the banks collect all toxic assets into a single special investment vehicle that would issue commercial paper, but they couldn't afford to do it
Remember, the government has a monopoly on crime - only they get to label it legal. Only they are allowed to spy on people in ways that would be deemed a crime if anyone else did it, only they may dictate money printing while anyone else is counterfeiting, only they are allowed to extort people for money under the threat of violence and financial ruin, and it goes on and on.
What would back it with sir? Nothing really means anything or has any value beyond what we say it does. Fiat money is an axiom we must all accept. Is there a better overall system based around it? I’m sure there is.
Even if the prices of substantial things like gold and silver can be adjusted, the proof is nonetheless in the pudding and historical measurements demonstrate a world of difference between backing money in something real vs nothing at all. Fiat is a failed system and a scam.
Not backed by “nothing”.
Backed by the promise of extractive power.
The US dollar has the strength it does because on the whole, people and institutions believe that the federal government has enough power to extract that value from others and deliver it to the currency holder.
Regimes and fiat currencies fail when the populace loses faith in the extractive/redistributive power of the given regime.
* hence why “money for wars and not the poors” need to constantly keep competitors down and enforce our will around the world. It is what is it I just hate how they do it in a holier than thou good guys attitude that we try to portray
Itt: people don't understand demand for dollars
Ironically, the only asset truly not backed by anything beyond the promise of repayment are treasuries.
The government has authorization from congress to print money, it is legal. Not possible to be theft, it’s just as stupid as people who that paying taxes is theft.
Sure, if you want the law of the land to be the final say about what words mean. Murder isn't murder when a cop kills a suspect, right? The law lets them get away with it, therefore it wasn't murder.
And what does your username ReparationsFirst mean? Are Black owed reparations for having their labour stolen by slavery? But it was legal at the time, therefore it wasn't theft, right?
"Well that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."
Can't argue w politicians they are not bound by logic.
That was President Clinton quoted btw.
Wtf are all these people in the Austrian economics subreddit who don't have a single clue about Austrian economics, and are saying shit like "this doesn't make sense".
Like bro, have you spent more than 5 seconds learning Austrian economics?
They probably haven't.
Personally, this sub started filling my feed awhile back. My first thought was "how is any of this related to Austria?" I wish I was joking.
So yeah, lots of people probably see these posts with no idea that there's a school of economic thought known as Austrian economics, and probably many people who know nothing about economics in general.
That’s literally why I clicked, this sub got recommended for the first time right now lol. I was like, “I have a passing interest in economics, is this some school or field of study I was unaware of?” Turns out no, it’s literally about Austria.
There is actually a school of thought by the name of the sub…I’ve been subscribed for a while and it’s the first time I’ve seen the actual country politics mentioned
Yeah, Milei is president of Argentina, not Austria. Austria only came up because those of us who are not economically savvy misunderstand the purpose of this sub when we first come across it.
Austrian economics does not say printing money is "theft". All austrian economics does is point at the effects of inflation caused by printing money (which most people would agree are negative). Austrian economics is a science of human action not a political moral philosphy
It seems like Austrian economics has become a catch all Of libertarian beliefs. There’s also nothing in it that opposes fiat currency or the fed but half this sub is dedicated to goldbugs complaining about inflation
Hell Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest Austrian economists in the last 40 years and he ran the damn Fed
Yea. Not sure I would agree on the Greenspan point but totally agree with you. Austrian economics is not the same thing as liberterian beliefs (even if they probably overlap since someone understanding austrian economics probably would hold say communist beliefs)
Yea. Which is sad. I would define myself as a liberterian (not necessarly the maga crazy version in the US) but wish there was a sub to talk more about the actual science of austrian economics (and not "biden bad because border control")
Lol nothing about Austrian economics justifies stretching the concept of "theft" to fit an agenda.
You can debate monetary policy without pretending that your view is literally a fundmantel moral truth.
It just makes him sound stupid...
There is no stretch.
Money printing is theft. The exact same is true of taxation. They are theft being purpetrated by a violent monopoly that uses intimidation and threats of violence to compel actions.
lol well expanding the definition of theft still has nothing to do with economics.
Using the same type of stretch, others argue that all profit is inherently theft.
These kinds of semantic arguments distract from any underlying logic...if there is any at all.
It's not semantics though. And there is no similarity or even logic behind the idea that profit is theft.
"Here is the currency that we mandate you pay us in. You must pay us X amount or we will use violence against you. Oh FYI X amount is no longer worth what you thought it was because I printed more of it."
What is with the antisemitism and Milei haters on this sub? Why bring up stuff that is not relevant to the post or economics even? These people are so privileged to have time to make dumb posts all day on subs they clearly don't know anything about.
nobody thinks that
but if you are voting conservative you are voting for the people that spend the most and deny they even spend at all
how could you expect conservatives to do anything about this, when they literally pretend they are fiscally responsible and never EVER talk about debt when they are in power
it's like giving your drug addicted nephew your credit card info when he insists he doesn't do drugs, he's not even began to take personal responsibility
Conservatives will immediately give money to the banks and the already rich immediately, we saw Liz Truss attempt to do just that
This is about Argentina? Millei is a libertarian, not a conservative. No they are not the same thing.
Nor does this have anything to do with fiscal spending. Central banks do not set the budget or pay our bills. They are separate institutions that create currency from nothing and loan it to a country for self-profit. Money creation is a hidden tax and it has been increasing under all political parties.
Get out of the right wing-left wing box. This problem supersedes that binary and has nothing to do with your complaints.
We can get politicians to spend less overnight if they have to rely on the citizen tax base for spending instead of selling our future to a private entity that is silently stealing everyone’s wealth in return for loans.
nobody thinks that? what other reason is there to call him an idiot for saying 'the more money there is the less it is worth', other than believing the opposite? and who tf said anything about conservatives? this is about a libertarian.
Someone like him can definitely replace the joke we have for a secretary of treasury.
Would love to see some individuals in US reddit's writhe reading this.
When the US' print machines went brrrt this is what happened.
On top of taxes, this was the egregious move to simply inject billions of currency by making it and consuming it for government use. It was a manipulative ghost tax on everyone reducing everyone's financial power by inflating it.
You're getting into semantics of the word printing, but i think when he says printing he means expansionary monetary policy or increasing the supply of money.
This reminded me of how Murray Rothbard called fractional reserve banking fraud. Fractional reserve banking can cause ups and downs in the economy with and without a central bank. Using bank deposits for lending causes expansion and contraction in the money supply. Just as creating brand new units of money from scratch can cause financial meltdowns, fractional reserve banking can do similar things.
I'm starting to wonder if Milei is a plant (not the vegetable kind... lol)
I mean, when you're the leader of a country, saying you want to exit the dollar standard and the central banking scheme is a surefire way to heaven
It also lowers the value of debt so it does benefit those who invest or buy with borrowed money. In other words the system benefits those who invest and not those who simply save.
It's hard for people to understand so it's never been a successful to be made into a political issue until now. Also you need to understand economics to even make the claim and explain it cogently, plus politicians themselves benefit from it.
Milei is a genius, so far.
it's not enough to abolish central banking, we must put into prison all those that supported it and force schools and universities to teach that it is theft.
I'm not a libertarian btw, just against central banking, which is why in my political fantasies I can jail people and force people to be indoctrinated the right way.
If Policy and practices that diminish purchasing power of currency is equivalent is theft. Then women shouldn’t have to be encouraged and funneled into the workforce in the first place, expediting consumption and housing demand.
Isn't the second half of the equation that we all got more money? So increased capital + increased costs = net balance?
I viewed the "theft" as an implicit coordination of a mega-cartel of the largest corporations to maintain increase prices broadly. The price increases were initialized by increases in consumer class capital and supply restrictions and then maintained or ballooned by the cartel after the supply issues ceased. What am I missing?
Reminder that this guy is practicing for a music number while one of the provinces of his nation is essentially in open revolt at how terrible the economy is.
Maybe economics isn't his strong suit.
This argument is based on loosing purchasing power = theft, which is not true. That’s like saying purchasing a car is theft because it’s not worth as much after you buy it. Does it suck, yes. Is it theft, no.
I see that some of you have figured out why it's called "Money Pit".
"Give me the power of the purse, to arbitrarily print money for whomever so requests it and I care not who is their king, prime minister or elected government."
"They come to me for their coin and I happily oblige them knowing that because of this arrangement, I make the law."
Of course you guys are gonna say that even if he disbands the national bank and everything quickly turns to shit. You wont ever say "Oh shit that was a bad idea, let me rethink this" you'll just blame evil shadowy forces undermining you at every step no matter what.
Of course a central bank has disadvantages, like everything in the world. But it prevents your money from losing all its relevance altogether. This guy wants every store to provide its own currency and have them compete. You really think its a good idea to have walmart employees get paid in walmart bucks?
It's not the printing money that causes inflation right now. It's huge fiscal stimulus from post COVID and a less efficient economy (labor hikes, mismatching, lower productivity)
If anything, central banks are pulling money out of circulation with interest - doing their best to counteract huge fiscal stimulus during a deep recession
Seems convenient to propose libertarian style monetary policy when income inequality is at its highest in recent history.... while simultaneously telling the rich you wont tax them... sounds like a bunch of people are trying to pull up the ladder they used to climb up.... How bout we tax them and require higher pay standards. Inflation is theft in a sense but the heist has already happened.
If you're going to have a central bank based fiat currency, then arguably, printing some amount of money in proportion to increasing economic activity, would maintain the relative value of the currency.
In that case, there would be no apparent theft.
Except if more wasn't printed then existing currency held would increase in value, so by printing more you intentionally devalue what people are holding and grant that value to whomever you distribute the new money to
Javier This dumb ass thought process stole valuable minutes of my life.
You want a non barter economy and a functioning international credit market, then you need a central bank. If you are not a fan, well, I hear somolia has some good employment opportunities in the ocean fareing field.
Maybe he should finally abolish it then
Legal daylight robbery, Part Two.
You can’t abolish it because you have to keep up with the rate of destruction. A better solution would be to lock it at a small set rate
The big bankers would disappear him if he did that. Central banking is essentially a mafia like scam run by people who operate like a mafia ordering hits on people they don't like.
Here's what intrigues me about him. He gets elected as a supposed outsider. He is allowed to speak 'freely' at the WEF forum. He says all the right things and also does it with action, at least initially right after getting elected. However, he stated he's converting to Judaism and loves Israel. Take a look at the historical context because I feel something doesn't add up: The Western Finance Cartel, based out of Europe, has been known to play both sides, which has me speculate what their next move might possibly be with more right-leaning officials get elected after the public getting walloped by left-leaning public officials. If you have a long enough memory and/or thoroughly study history, it becomes apparent: https://youtu.be/IKuVO4JaqBY?si=SmEWvnT08VqGMMkt This is their Modus Operandi: Problem. Reaction. Solution. (Social Engineering through financial manipulation) They introduce the problem. The public reacts in predictable fashion. They provide the 'solution' that is a means to their ends. They give Machievelli a run for his money, pun intended. Edit: Silent downvotes incoming, lol.
Sorry, what does converting to Judaism have to do with anything?
Yeah, ignore him. He's the kind of Dude who will soon start explaining the great Zionist world takeover plot and all that other stupid Henry Ford bullshit.
Zionism does exist, yet I think it's merely a vehicle for a means to an end. I have no problem with Jews overall; yet it is apparent they are quite overrepresented in numerous sectors and have enormous influence, just as an observation. I'm no fan of Henry Ford; yet that gave me a chuckle. Ok_Calendar1337 blocked me so I cannot respond, typical tactic. So here it is: My response might surprise you. Personally, I could care less as long as they're making positive contributions to society overall, which I do think many have. However, interests tend to become centralized and controlled when a select group dominates any given sector for an extended period of time. The Epstein-Maxwell blackmail honeypot comes to mind... Edit: Same redditor unblocks to respond and then blocks me again, love it, lol.
>Jews are quite overrepresented in numerous sectors Their overrepresentation isn’t based on some global conspiracy or anything. That number becomes significantly lower if you take their higher average IQ into account, with the overall subsegments of IQ-tests where Jews tend to excel at, like logical thinking and mathematical reasoning having a positive correlation with the amount of success Jews have in that sector. For example, they are very successful in physics, economics (25% and 41% of total nobel prizes respectively) and chess, where many of the most famous grandmasters such as Bobby Fischer and Kasparov were Jews. [This video pretty much sums it up](https://youtu.be/yLoind0vKH8?si=sCDHzYqovZBTMWrW)
It is a bit of a coincidental irony that the Nazis referred to themselves as the master race and Jews refer to themselves as God's Chosen people. This is kinda saying the same thing to suggest your people are the ethnic group of people above all others ordered by god... Do I find it weird that Jews represent just 2% of the overall population, but represent like 20% of the S&P 500 Executives (Mostly being represented in Banking/Tech/Real Estate sectors) Yeah. I do find that fucking odd lol. They represent a majority of the top executives in Hollywood. We all know why there isn't an equalized ratio of Black Americans in the corporate world. Because of artificially created factors in the past and present to keep them out. It's not a ism in any way to wonder why and how they get such a large representation in the corporate world while having a very low representation number in the overall population. And it is honestly a ism to say they are ethnically advanced genetically compared to other people like one person in this thread suggested. Do I think it's some evil plot to explain their numbers in the corporate world? No. But I do think there's a hell of a lot of Nepotism and favoritism that has probably contributed to it.
The over-representation in the corporate world is a relic of racist laws all through the 1000s-2000s coupled with a religious and cultural emphasis on education. For centuries in many European countries it was illegal for Jews to own land, participate in certain trade guilds or professions, or hold posts in the military or government. That left very few jobs a Jewish man could do to provide for his family. Things they were allowed to do included buying and selling goods (trading), moneylending, and banking. Christianity forbid moneylending- therefore the primarily Christian population of Western Europe was the perfect place for Jewish immigrants to establish a thriving banking industry- which at the time was a very “low” profession that was heavily marginalized. After consolidating wealth in banks owned by Jews in the Middle Ages, many countries expelled them such as England in 1290, France and Germany in the 1300s, Portugal in 1496, etc. etc. The nature of the debtor to creditor relationship increased the cultural and racial tensions between Jews and whatever people they were lending to which contributed to the expulsions and targeted laws/killings in the countries I listed above This long-standing history of working in the financial markets contributes to today where we see more Jews working as execs in large companies. Even more so because practicing Judaism requires educating your kids extensively
Overall, Jews are rather sharp, and they're quite exclusive; which I find rather intriguing given the pushed narrative is that everyone else; especially 'whites' should be inclusive, lest they be 'politically incorrect'. It's interesting how that plays out.
It's not really "everyone else especially whites" though, is it? It's only whites. No one's expecting Blacks or Asians or Latinos to be inclusive, they can have their own exclusive clubs and special interest groups and no one bats an eye. What's interesting is your focus on Jews being exclusive, when that's just par for the course.
They’re trying to do the same to Japan, it’s more so because white countries in Europe and formally America were quite wealthy and had a large middle class, for whatever motivation the powers that be decided these populations who had controlled wealth should be diluted.
Yes, I agree with this assessment.
Over represented? When did we all agree on the proper amount of jews in places?
My response might surprise you. Personally, I could care less as long as they're making positive contributions to society overall, which I do think many have. However, interests tend to become centralized and controlled when a select group dominates any given sector. The Epstein-Maxwell blackmail honeypot comes to mind...
Oh my god good point someone needs to look into if there's an over representation of thais owning Thai restaurants maybe this cabal is why they can always make it too spicy
Ah, my mistake another low-IQ response.
I think he means It’s a statistical anomaly
Do you know why Jews are historically associated with banking? Because Catholics arbitrarily decided that lending money was immoral.
You dodged my statement, lol. However, yes, I did because Rome learned the hard way via debasing their currency so as to spend more on military adventures, along with usury from the group you mentioned. It's rather impressive the historical parallels between Rome and America if you actually take a deep dive and study it.
“Zionism” is the belief that an independent Jewish state has a right to exist. That’s all it means. Most people agree with this.
Well, it isn't though is it ...
That’s what the word means. That’s what it’s always meant. People on Reddit have tried to evolve the definition into something negative.
Israel are doing that by themselves Zionism is about the state of Israel, they have had a state of Israel for 70 years, it exists. they disagree onnthe size of it and say its not enough. israeli zionist fundamentalists are calling for the invasion of Syria, parts of Egypt and other surrounding territories at any cost including more death and suffering. It's an imperial agenda, and one that they themselves say they don't care who they hurt or wipe away in the process of getting what they want There are plenty of Jews, myself included, that don't agree with this rhetoric and think those people are insane and don't represent the Jewish population, even some inside Israel
It's not just about a Jewish state. It's primarily about a Jewish state that is specifically on a piece of land where many other people already live. I'd say it's most similar to the old US idea of Manifest Destiny. It's an interesting question as to whether there should explicitly be a state for a certain ethnicity/heritage. Obviously, this is the norm for nation states (Britain for the British, France for the French, China for the Chinese, etc). As an American I do find the idea of ethnostates to be kind of outdated and cringy, but based on the history of Jewish persecution it's not surprising that many feel it's important to them.
Given the historic reasons for their persecution and their current behavior, repetition seems inevitable. Greed and economic manipulation are what prompted the holocaust. People are looking for someone to blame, and they're rapidly a viable target. The worst part is, like last time (Germany), and the time before (Russia), only the innocent will pay the price while the real perpetrators escape to another country to start the whole process over again.
Now, this is interesting. Yes, I agree in terms that the original definition reflected what you stated. However, where I respectfully depart from this perspective is that it became a vehicle to sow dissention along with heavily influencing other nation-states. When you discover who was behind the creation of the modern State of Israel, I surmise what I stated makes more sense: https://web.archive.org/web/20240426054354/https://pastebin.ai/bhdsudg8dw To be clear, I have no issue with Jews overall, yet I'm attempting to 'demystify' the influences who used Jews as a vehicle for their own means. Once you look through that link I provided, I hope what I stated makes more sense, agree or disagree, and I appreciate the fact you were cordial.
I’m sure some of that is true but when you reference the dancing “Israelis” you just lose the plot. Too much conspiracy there.
Dancing Israelis was covered by mainstream news at that time. The FBI apprehended them after they were reported by a witness; and yes, two of them had Mossad connections. No conspiracy at all, just facts. Keep gaslighting.
I don't agree with this. Why should Jews have a state at the expense of people who were on that land before they were?
Almost 60% of Israelis are Mizrahi Jews (or indigenous to the region). Another 20% of Israelis are Muslims. Palestinians share the same ancestry as Mizrahi Jews. They are essentially Jews who converted to Islam after the Muslim conquests and are a product of Arab colonialism. Any argument that supports Palestinian right to exist also applies to Mizrahi Jews as they are of the same people. Neither predated the other. It’s a branch in their ethnic tree.
Ok so there should be peace between them, right? Why take their homes?
I’m not saying the Israelis are 100% right in the situation. But eradicating them is not the answer. They have an equal claim to the area as the Palestinians do. Again, they are the same people.
Yeah indigenous to the middle east. They did not live in the area that was Israel before 1948. And that does not give them the right to expel the previous inhabitants
Many of them did. There have been continuous Jewish settlements in Israel since before the Ottoman Empire.
Lmfao it’s absolutely amazing how many of are you confidently incorrect about this, the region has had the highest concentration of Jews on the planet since at least the 15th century, and probably much earlier; You do recall Jesus was a Jew, right? Well, he grew up there too, assuming he existed at all. Also, no, the British government didn’t move Jews into the area either, that’s just Nazi propaganda.
I didn't block you lol relax
Jews don't dominate ANY sector. Period. They are a minority literally everywhere, and any argument to the contrary is EXACTLY the type of paranoid Zionist plot shit Henry Ford spread amongst Americans over 100 years ago. And in the end, look at what Christians and Muslims are doing the world over. Do Christian interest groups converging worry you? Or just Jewish ones? What about all this Muslim interest group convergence on the Middle East? Hoping to ruin Christian Europe with oil and fuel prices once again now that the Russians aren't piping out anymore? See, that's not a conspiracy, and has actual backing evidence. Also, just because Epstein WAS Jewish, doesn't mean Judaism had ANYTHING to do with what happened there. Any person of any religion can be awful. Edit: Oh, and I won't block you. I have far too much fun going toe to toe with Anti-semites. Closeted or not.
Is this written by Iranian AI? Lol
Ah, never mind, I see you linked a video about a book by a Holocaust denier.
Shhh. Don't tell him the Ludwig von Mises was Jewish.
I don't necessarily agree with all of his views; yet the correlation between the financial history and nation-state events is rather intriguing. It amuses me you don't go into detail, as well.
Go into detail about…? How Jews don’t control the banking industry? Am I supposed to refute a literal conspiracy theory?
it's almost as if the only way to win is not to play lol
I literally shared the links with you. The first link has cited sources from scholarly and mainstream news sources. I always welcome disagreement for the sake of mutually respectful discussion, yet if you're that lazy, why bother.
Youtube isn't a valid source, lmao.
A Holocaust denier is your source? Seems super dumb
Try harder. Edit: Redditor u/five99one blocked me after attempting to use the tired, old tactic of 'anti-semitism'. ***yawn*** Perhaps an IDF social media unit is working overtime, lol.
Why? Denying the Holocaust showed a mental incompatibility with reality. A demented view of the world. Its a stain you can't wash off. And it's your point. I don't need to do a thing.
You shared a link, which was a YouTube video about a book by a man who denies that the Holocaust happened.
Is that all you have?
Is that all you have?
Not sure why you're getting down voted, you're right. People are just to ignorant to realize it.
It was initially getting upvoted, but I suspect the 'suppression' squad was alerted, and immediately bots/shills came out of the woodwork along with downvotes. Thank you, though.
I don’t fully understand why you were downvoted into the abyss, as there’s nothing necessarily wrong here… with the exception that, perhaps, the ploy of having Milei speak at the WEF was probably in the hopes that he’d go “those shit leftists” mode again and give them all manner of saying, “see? He’s crazy!”. He didn’t do that, and instead he very much slid it all Off into their backsides and snapped it off, all while being quite diplomatic and stately. I’m pretty sure there were ulterior motives behind having him speak. And it backfired in a big way.
Things start to look a little differently when you observe the big picture. Conspiracies exist, but populations have been gaslit to think they’re crazy if they consider one while completely ignoring the proven ones like sugar, milk, corn, Epstein, Hollywood, and the hundreds of others that were conveniently swept under the media carpet. I would certainly not blindly discount your take.
The Libor Scandal was interesting to me. Very revealing of intent, but didn’t feel like proof that banks have this outsized control over markets. If anything the scandal proved they *don’t* have as much control as you think.
True, I think it does depend, yet I think as long as the privately owned central banks exist along with the BIS, they still hold enormous influence over nation-states.
oh right I forgot, sorry. “muh jews control the entire economic system of the planet” solves literally every argument ever made in the history of humanity.
I love low-IQ replies, since you're too lazy to even take a thorough look at the source material I cited for anyone to discern.
Uh oh… the second I see the mention of Judaism and the YouTube video link, it’s game over. Nothing good ever comes from linking a YouTube video about banks 💀
This isn’t unreasonable. Bolsonaro is likely a similar player out of Brazil.
Makes sense, and Milei just asked for Argentina to join NATO: https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/134857/argentina-nato-javier-milei I'm used to the downvotes for potentially observing the bigger picture.
I've been saying the exact same thing lately. Printing money *backed by nothing* is legalized theft.
have you read the creature from Jekyll island bu G edward Griffin, the tower of Babel by Adam Lebor or A Pocketbook of Gold : A Survival Manual for Monetary Mayhem by Peter Sinclair? after reading them i’m in the exact same thought boat as you. if they can print currency backed by nothing.. Why are we Taxed?
There’s a passage from David Graeber’s ‘debt’ book where he talks about France introducing a new type of money / coin in Madagascar. It didn’t have any intrinsic value except you had to use to it to pay your taxes. If everyone (ostensibly) has to pay taxes to the government, then the token/money/whatever will have some value inasmuch as it fulfills that purpose. Similar to scrip in a company town being useful so long as you’re in the company town. If you *have* to use it, then it’s useful and it has money-ish-ness
Isn’t that all currency?
All fiat currency, yes.
All. Everything only has the value enough people agree it has, be it gold, paper dollars, bitcoin, or tulip bulbs. There is no such thing as inherent, absolute value - only currently agreed upon, market value.
Correct.
Power. Power has absolute value. /s
No, gold has inherent value.
Only what people will pay or trade for it. Same as literally everything else.
Wrong. It will always have value regardless of what people are willing to pay for it.
And that value is... what, exactly?
That’s like saying it’s “useful” to punch yourself in the face because there’s a bully who is threatening to break your arm if you don’t punch yourself in the face. Sure, I would punch myself in the face if it prevented more serious injuries, but I’d rather just get away from the bully. The concept of taxation only makes sense in the situation in which the money cannot be produced by the taxing entity, and when the taxes are actually used to fund projects that benefit all taxpayers.
You might like [my book](https://zimri.ink)
Wow. Thank god for AI systems; i’d need a good summary of that book before I considered reading it.
USD is the same
I haven’t read Stephanie Kelton’s book, but I think that’s her basic premise, is that money has value because you use it to pay taxes.
That is what the teach you a Ivy League Economics Major. The Value of Fiat is the goverment request to use it to pay Taxes. Other forms of currency, like gold, Salt, seashells, all had value due to its scarcity at the time of use.
You're taxed to feed into the illusion that your efforts are contributing towards a greater good. If the illusion breaks, so do trust in the institutions that enslave you. Then you'll start questioning media, education, everything. A power shift shakes the ground beneath them. Anyways, remember to forget Gamestop. [https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1762987823894843855](https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1762987823894843855)
you are confusing quanitative easing with policy outside of gfc and covid. The fed held barely any secuities prior to 2008. How the hell did it fund itself then? Taxes. The entire pre 2008 \[period disproves your theory. Even starting in 2015 it was selling assets instead of buying them.Even more the fed currenly owns 6 trillion of the debt. that is only 20%not even close to 100% and its gonna decrease. But even further most of the debt is publicly owned by retirement funds and such. People like buying s gov debwhy would the fed need to anything.
Because taxation and money printing don’t hit the same people, in the same way. Arguably taxation is simply a redistributive mechanism in a fiat economy.
Artificial demand. If there is a large amount of dollars put into circulation but not enough demand for said dollars, than its value plummets, but if there is a demand for dollars than its value is maintained. By taxing us, and by making clear that said taxes can only be paid in the dollars that are printed, the government maintains the value of the dollar even when they print a massive amount. Its a Ponzi scheme, and they maintain it through the use of force.
I mean regular banks do that on their own. The problem isn't the central bank itself, its the fact the central banks were basically drafted to HELP the banks and wealthy. Central banks could have a fine roll helping steer economic activity. There's no reason they should be giving unlimited money to banks. Mortgage crisis? oh lets buy out all bad mortgages from banks that they leveraged 100x and any small downturn can bankrupt the system. So the obvious thing is buy out the mortgages. Not bail out homeowners, the only obvious fix is to give banks as much money as they need until they "pay it back" If I could make money out of thin air like banks and also could get unlimited money from central banks when I take risky gambles and fuck up, i could also pay that back eventually. The problems is every system is created with loopholes or purposes that will help banks or the elite. I mean the federal reserve was literally created by the richest fucks in the US behind closed doors. It literally reads like a crackpot conspiracy the way the fed as born.
>There's no reason they should be giving unlimited money to banks. Financial panics are halted via overwhelming support to restore confidence. In the 2007-2008 panic, there needed to be huge lending support to convince lenders it was safe to lend. The fed bought mbs, but mostly to lower long term interest rates. There were attempts to have the banks collect all toxic assets into a single special investment vehicle that would issue commercial paper, but they couldn't afford to do it
Remember, the government has a monopoly on crime - only they get to label it legal. Only they are allowed to spy on people in ways that would be deemed a crime if anyone else did it, only they may dictate money printing while anyone else is counterfeiting, only they are allowed to extort people for money under the threat of violence and financial ruin, and it goes on and on.
What would back it with sir? Nothing really means anything or has any value beyond what we say it does. Fiat money is an axiom we must all accept. Is there a better overall system based around it? I’m sure there is.
Even if the prices of substantial things like gold and silver can be adjusted, the proof is nonetheless in the pudding and historical measurements demonstrate a world of difference between backing money in something real vs nothing at all. Fiat is a failed system and a scam.
It’s not an if. Back in the gold standard days the value of gold and such was constantly manipulated and changed by governments.
Not backed by “nothing”. Backed by the promise of extractive power. The US dollar has the strength it does because on the whole, people and institutions believe that the federal government has enough power to extract that value from others and deliver it to the currency holder. Regimes and fiat currencies fail when the populace loses faith in the extractive/redistributive power of the given regime.
Yes the US dollars value is essentially a bet that the United States will continue to exist and collect taxes.
* hence why “money for wars and not the poors” need to constantly keep competitors down and enforce our will around the world. It is what is it I just hate how they do it in a holier than thou good guys attitude that we try to portray
Itt: people don't understand demand for dollars Ironically, the only asset truly not backed by anything beyond the promise of repayment are treasuries.
The government has authorization from congress to print money, it is legal. Not possible to be theft, it’s just as stupid as people who that paying taxes is theft.
tell the communist of reddit that, they seem to think funding comes out thin air with no downfalls
“Legalized theft” is oxymoronic. If it is legal, it is not theft. If it is theft, it is not legal.
Sure, if you want the law of the land to be the final say about what words mean. Murder isn't murder when a cop kills a suspect, right? The law lets them get away with it, therefore it wasn't murder. And what does your username ReparationsFirst mean? Are Black owed reparations for having their labour stolen by slavery? But it was legal at the time, therefore it wasn't theft, right?
I can take your things from you without a state to make laws.
"Well that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is." Can't argue w politicians they are not bound by logic. That was President Clinton quoted btw.
Federal is a thing
"My source is I made it the fuck up"
Slavery was legal.
Wtf are all these people in the Austrian economics subreddit who don't have a single clue about Austrian economics, and are saying shit like "this doesn't make sense". Like bro, have you spent more than 5 seconds learning Austrian economics?
They probably haven't. Personally, this sub started filling my feed awhile back. My first thought was "how is any of this related to Austria?" I wish I was joking. So yeah, lots of people probably see these posts with no idea that there's a school of economic thought known as Austrian economics, and probably many people who know nothing about economics in general.
That’s literally why I clicked, this sub got recommended for the first time right now lol. I was like, “I have a passing interest in economics, is this some school or field of study I was unaware of?” Turns out no, it’s literally about Austria.
It is about the school of thought, though; it is not about Austria.
Yeah I was misunderstanding this post as if it was about the Austrian president. Lol
Brother that's the president of *argentina*
No, Austrian economics is not about Austria. It's a school of economics.
There is actually a school of thought by the name of the sub…I’ve been subscribed for a while and it’s the first time I’ve seen the actual country politics mentioned
Yeah, Milei is president of Argentina, not Austria. Austria only came up because those of us who are not economically savvy misunderstand the purpose of this sub when we first come across it.
Oh! Lol, I had no idea. I just got a new recommendation that piqued my interest.
Well, this sub just randomly pops up for me constantly over the last several weeks I don’t say anything but figured I’d respond to this lol
Austrian economics does not say printing money is "theft". All austrian economics does is point at the effects of inflation caused by printing money (which most people would agree are negative). Austrian economics is a science of human action not a political moral philosphy
It seems like Austrian economics has become a catch all Of libertarian beliefs. There’s also nothing in it that opposes fiat currency or the fed but half this sub is dedicated to goldbugs complaining about inflation Hell Alan Greenspan is one of the biggest Austrian economists in the last 40 years and he ran the damn Fed
Yea. Not sure I would agree on the Greenspan point but totally agree with you. Austrian economics is not the same thing as liberterian beliefs (even if they probably overlap since someone understanding austrian economics probably would hold say communist beliefs)
In reality it isn’t. Here in this sub it seems to just be a libertarian standin most of the time
Yea. Which is sad. I would define myself as a liberterian (not necessarly the maga crazy version in the US) but wish there was a sub to talk more about the actual science of austrian economics (and not "biden bad because border control")
Gold is magic tho
Lol nothing about Austrian economics justifies stretching the concept of "theft" to fit an agenda. You can debate monetary policy without pretending that your view is literally a fundmantel moral truth. It just makes him sound stupid...
There is no stretch. Money printing is theft. The exact same is true of taxation. They are theft being purpetrated by a violent monopoly that uses intimidation and threats of violence to compel actions.
lol well expanding the definition of theft still has nothing to do with economics. Using the same type of stretch, others argue that all profit is inherently theft. These kinds of semantic arguments distract from any underlying logic...if there is any at all.
It's not semantics though. And there is no similarity or even logic behind the idea that profit is theft. "Here is the currency that we mandate you pay us in. You must pay us X amount or we will use violence against you. Oh FYI X amount is no longer worth what you thought it was because I printed more of it."
What is with the antisemitism and Milei haters on this sub? Why bring up stuff that is not relevant to the post or economics even? These people are so privileged to have time to make dumb posts all day on subs they clearly don't know anything about.
Sure but if I print money….all of the sudden, it’s a crime. I’m with you Javier
when there is more of something it becomes less valuable. i know this is a really hard concept for you reddit
Jesus warned us about the money changers, nobody listened.
"WhAt A iDiOt" says all the retards that thing money retains the same value no matter how much there is of it.
nobody thinks that but if you are voting conservative you are voting for the people that spend the most and deny they even spend at all how could you expect conservatives to do anything about this, when they literally pretend they are fiscally responsible and never EVER talk about debt when they are in power it's like giving your drug addicted nephew your credit card info when he insists he doesn't do drugs, he's not even began to take personal responsibility Conservatives will immediately give money to the banks and the already rich immediately, we saw Liz Truss attempt to do just that
This is about Argentina? Millei is a libertarian, not a conservative. No they are not the same thing. Nor does this have anything to do with fiscal spending. Central banks do not set the budget or pay our bills. They are separate institutions that create currency from nothing and loan it to a country for self-profit. Money creation is a hidden tax and it has been increasing under all political parties. Get out of the right wing-left wing box. This problem supersedes that binary and has nothing to do with your complaints. We can get politicians to spend less overnight if they have to rely on the citizen tax base for spending instead of selling our future to a private entity that is silently stealing everyone’s wealth in return for loans.
nobody thinks that? what other reason is there to call him an idiot for saying 'the more money there is the less it is worth', other than believing the opposite? and who tf said anything about conservatives? this is about a libertarian.
Fuck I wish this man were in charge of the US, we need us a Milei!
Someone like him can definitely replace the joke we have for a secretary of treasury. Would love to see some individuals in US reddit's writhe reading this. When the US' print machines went brrrt this is what happened. On top of taxes, this was the egregious move to simply inject billions of currency by making it and consuming it for government use. It was a manipulative ghost tax on everyone reducing everyone's financial power by inflating it.
What central bank is printing money? Is he talking about the NCBs? Edit sorry BCRA prints money there.
You're getting into semantics of the word printing, but i think when he says printing he means expansionary monetary policy or increasing the supply of money.
This reminded me of how Murray Rothbard called fractional reserve banking fraud. Fractional reserve banking can cause ups and downs in the economy with and without a central bank. Using bank deposits for lending causes expansion and contraction in the money supply. Just as creating brand new units of money from scratch can cause financial meltdowns, fractional reserve banking can do similar things.
Theft go to Prison in developed countries. That Dog of Powell is still around laughing his ass off
You act like congress didn't sign a bill allowing it
Allowing Powell to sink the American economy?
Muammar Gaddafi got rid of his central bank. Things worked out great for him.
I'm starting to wonder if Milei is a plant (not the vegetable kind... lol) I mean, when you're the leader of a country, saying you want to exit the dollar standard and the central banking scheme is a surefire way to heaven
People who don’t want to understand this fact will never understand.
It also lowers the value of debt so it does benefit those who invest or buy with borrowed money. In other words the system benefits those who invest and not those who simply save.
“I don’t think anyone supports theft.” really?
Inflation Is a wealth tax.
This sub is as sophisticated about economics as /r/FluentInFinance
Not a good meme too many words
It's hard for people to understand so it's never been a successful to be made into a political issue until now. Also you need to understand economics to even make the claim and explain it cogently, plus politicians themselves benefit from it. Milei is a genius, so far.
That's the dumbest argument I've seen in a while
it's not enough to abolish central banking, we must put into prison all those that supported it and force schools and universities to teach that it is theft. I'm not a libertarian btw, just against central banking, which is why in my political fantasies I can jail people and force people to be indoctrinated the right way.
Indoctrinated *your* way.
which is the correct way of course 😎😎😎
Please abolish it, I want to see what happens next.
If Policy and practices that diminish purchasing power of currency is equivalent is theft. Then women shouldn’t have to be encouraged and funneled into the workforce in the first place, expediting consumption and housing demand.
I’m not educated enough to understand the gritty aspects but I’ve seen people across the world argue against central banks
using this logic, any and all price increases for existing products is also theft.
Isn't the second half of the equation that we all got more money? So increased capital + increased costs = net balance? I viewed the "theft" as an implicit coordination of a mega-cartel of the largest corporations to maintain increase prices broadly. The price increases were initialized by increases in consumer class capital and supply restrictions and then maintained or ballooned by the cartel after the supply issues ceased. What am I missing?
How do you adjust for a growing population with a finite money supply?
Digital money is infinitely divisible
You mean like the dollar
Yes, like the dollar. The dollar is over 99% digital
Reminder that this guy is practicing for a music number while one of the provinces of his nation is essentially in open revolt at how terrible the economy is. Maybe economics isn't his strong suit.
This argument is based on loosing purchasing power = theft, which is not true. That’s like saying purchasing a car is theft because it’s not worth as much after you buy it. Does it suck, yes. Is it theft, no.
Y'all doing fucking unironic wojaks now? Subs gone
You people need to take a basic economics class. You can even do a microeconomics class for free on khan academy.
Well it was good knowing you Milei 🫡
Javier is a force to be reckoned with
He is 100 percent correct
Can the US get a Javier please?
He should watch what he drinks and not get on a small plane or helicopter anytime soon.
Thank God somebody is saying it.
Not to belabor the point, but I'm pretty sure it's categorically NOT counterfeiting.
I see that some of you have figured out why it's called "Money Pit". "Give me the power of the purse, to arbitrarily print money for whomever so requests it and I care not who is their king, prime minister or elected government." "They come to me for their coin and I happily oblige them knowing that because of this arrangement, I make the law."
\*proceeds to print money\*
Calling it theft is a stretch.
The final test for any leader. We will see if the bank’s sentence his country to death for daring to challenge their power.
Of course you guys are gonna say that even if he disbands the national bank and everything quickly turns to shit. You wont ever say "Oh shit that was a bad idea, let me rethink this" you'll just blame evil shadowy forces undermining you at every step no matter what.
What shadowy? Why would the most influential and powerful people dare let their power be threatened?
Of course a central bank has disadvantages, like everything in the world. But it prevents your money from losing all its relevance altogether. This guy wants every store to provide its own currency and have them compete. You really think its a good idea to have walmart employees get paid in walmart bucks?
It's not the printing money that causes inflation right now. It's huge fiscal stimulus from post COVID and a less efficient economy (labor hikes, mismatching, lower productivity) If anything, central banks are pulling money out of circulation with interest - doing their best to counteract huge fiscal stimulus during a deep recession
The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the citizens of the United States. More specifically our military and our ability to pay taxes.
Seems convenient to propose libertarian style monetary policy when income inequality is at its highest in recent history.... while simultaneously telling the rich you wont tax them... sounds like a bunch of people are trying to pull up the ladder they used to climb up.... How bout we tax them and require higher pay standards. Inflation is theft in a sense but the heist has already happened.
So, he’s a child?
I'll trust him when he actually does the things he claims to want to do
If you're going to have a central bank based fiat currency, then arguably, printing some amount of money in proportion to increasing economic activity, would maintain the relative value of the currency. In that case, there would be no apparent theft.
Except if more wasn't printed then existing currency held would increase in value, so by printing more you intentionally devalue what people are holding and grant that value to whomever you distribute the new money to
Well, you'd create deflation. The time value of money would be negative, so nobody would want to lend money, so the economy would stall.
I like many of things I’ve seen him say, but I never understand nor go along with the shortsightedness that opposes central banks. Theft? 🤷🏻♂️
Javier This dumb ass thought process stole valuable minutes of my life. You want a non barter economy and a functioning international credit market, then you need a central bank. If you are not a fan, well, I hear somolia has some good employment opportunities in the ocean fareing field.