[escepticos] Re: Aznar sabe cómo salir de la crisis (era Re: [escepticos] El paro supera los cuatro millones de personas)

[Felipe Martínez Pastor]

Hola.
Sí, la de la reserva federal está bastante bien. Sólo decía que lo del
banco central parece ser el leiv motiv de la de Zeitgeist (no la he
visto), mientras que es sólo un aspecto (malo) de la de Money as debt.
Saludos.
Felipe

PD: es que me cabreó el estilo quasi-hoygan del enlace de natsufan, es
de los que echan a perder una buena crítica.


Pedro J. Hdez escribió:
> El día 28 de abril de 2009 14:17, Felipe Martínez Pastor
> <felipe.egrupos en gmail.com> escribió:
>> Buenas.
>>
> 
>> Y se quede tan ancho. Este no ha dibujado un y=e^x en su vida.
>>
>> En suma, que poca credibilidad me ofrece un blog que va a criticar un
>> documental llamado "money as debt" y lo que critica es la malatraducción
>> "el dinero es deuda".
> 
> Leerse la página de la reserva federal puede ser un auténtico coñazo,
> pero es allí donde puedes contrarrestar los malos argumentos. En el
> link que te recomendaba puedes leer una explicación magnífica con
> referencias
> 
> Copio y pego de http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-three/
> 
> Esto es lo que se dice en todos estos documentales
> 
> "So what is a Central Bank? A Central Bank is an institution that
> produces the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical
> precedent, two specific powers are inherent in central banking
> practice. The control of interest rates, and the control of the money
> supply, or inflation. A central bank does not simply supply a
> government's economy with money, it loans it to them at interest.
> Then, through the use of increasing and decreasing the supply of
> money, the central bank regulates the value of the currency being
> issued. It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this
> system can only produce one thing in the long run: debt.
> 
> It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure this scam out. For every
> single dollar produced by the central bank is loaned at interest, that
> means every single dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a
> certain percent of debt based on that dollar. And since the central
> bank has a monopoly over the production of the currency for the entire
> country, and they loan each dollar out with immediate debt attached to
> it, where does the money to pay for the debt come from? It can only
> come from the central bank again. Which means the central bank has to
> perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover the
> outstanding debt created, which in turn, since that new money is
> loaned out at interest as well, creates even more debt! The end result
> of this system without fail is slavery. For it is impossible for the
> government and thus the public, to ever come out of the
> self-generating debt."
> 
> Esta es la verdadera explicación
> 
> "The primary reason a central banking system was implemented is
> because "free banking systems", that is ones that are not centralized,
> were unstable. Between 1837 and 1862, a time when we had free banking,
> banks issued their own bank notes, which were backed against their own
> gold and silver, and states regulated reserve requirements, interest
> rates on loans and deposits, and so forth.[5] The problem with this
> system is it created a lot of unstable banks. In fact, banks would
> only last around 5 years before going bankrupt because they could no
> longer redeem the notes of customers. A third of banks failed during
> the free banking era.[6]
> 
> Imagine going to a bank today, and them telling you that your paper
> money is actually worthless, you can't buy or sell anything with it.
> Of course, the movie implies this later by saying the Federal Reserve
> System creates worthless money, but if that was the case, I don't see
> why we haven't had massive market crashes and wide-spread instability
> as we did prior to the modern system.
> 
> Contrary to the film, the Federal Reserve does not increasingly create
> debt. The total debt mounted each year by the Federal Reserve is only
> about 7% of the total national debt. The Federal Reserve rebates its
> net earnings to the Treasury every year, thus the money borrowed from
> the Federal Reserve has no net interest obligation for the
> treasury[7].
> 
> If we travel back to a time when banks made their own currency, we
> also had the problem of going to multiple banks. I imagine if banks
> still did that, we'd probably wind up with a bank monopoly anyway,
> because people would want the convenience of being able to use the
> same money everywhere, especially businesses. Instead the Central
> Banking system allows businesses and people to deal less with
> converting all the tons of different bank notes they receive, and
> allows them to more easily save their money in cash or coin form, or
> in a bank backed up by the FDIC."
> 
> [5] J. Lawrence Broz; The International Origins of the Federal Reserve
> System Cornell University Press. 1997.
> [6] Myron T. Herrick "The Panic of 1907 and Some of Its Lessons",
> Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.
> 31 (Jan.-June 1908)
> [7] Mishkin, Frederic S. (2007). The Economics of Money, Banking, and
> Financial Markets (Alternate Edition). Boston: Addison Wesley, 386.
> ISBN 0-321-42177-9.
> "
> 
> Lo que dice aquí puedes contrastarlo y ampliarlo en este artículo
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html
> 
> Pero la manera más sencilla en que contrasté yo la información es, muy
> bien, si esta gente dice que la deuda crece indefinidamente, vamos a
> ver la evolución de la deuda estadounidense. Según en este FAQ de
> GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE sobre la deuda, en la página 18
> puedes ver la figura 5
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04485sp.pdf
> 
> Con internet se coge antes a un mentiroso que a un cojo y esta peña
> llanamente miente, algunos más sutilmente que otros. Aquí tienes otro
> ejemplo
> http://www.webofdebt.com/
> Miráte la biografía de la autora del libro y dime si no estamos ante
> desvaríos conspiranoicos. Es lo que hay.
> 
> 
> saludos
> 
> Pedro J.
> 
> 
> 
>> Saludos.
>>
>> Felipe
>>
>>
>> Adria Comos escribió:
>>> Saludos!
>>>
>>> Tengo un compañero "anarca" en el trabajo que me recomendó vivamente "El dinero es deuda".  Lo ví, y me pareció que tenía cierto tufillo conspiranoico (empezando por la falacia de la "conservación del dinero" que nombra Pedro).  Me quedó más confirmado después de pillar algún libro de macroeconomía -Samuelson y demás- e investigar un poco por ahí (siempre dentro de mi ignorancia en el tema).
>>>
>>> Por si alguien quiere echarle un vistazo, estos son unos "debunkings" de los "pseudo-documentales" estos ("El dinero es deuda", "Zeitgeist", "Zeitgeist Addendum" y demás) que ví por la red.  Creo que están bastante bien.
>>>
>>> http://natsufan.livejournal.com/32532.html#cutid1
>>> http://chemazdamundi.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/el-dinero-no-es-deuda-la-deuda-publica/
>>>
>>> Aquí hay alguno de los mitos sobre la Reserva Federal (en los que se suelen apoyar esta gente) explicados...
>>> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html
>>>
>>> Saludos!
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Escepticos mailing list
>> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
>> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>>
> 
> 
>