Neither would any true Socialist like yourself since Kibbutzism is grounded in Zionism and I assume that you’re no Zionist like Noam Chomksy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz.

That’s describes Socialism. You must be a socialist.

Gentlemen such as PatrickSMcnally can produce as much theoretical Marxist propaganda as you desire but cannot produce an ounce of food for his neighbor. Had he studied the latter rather than the former he could have. I was his individually driven motivation to study one, and not the other. It is alittle selfish, but there is nothing wrong with this, we are all alittle selfish.

He then decides to peddle Marxism as though it has any viability in relation to humanity, or human nature. But he will dillegently attempt to coerce and influence the minds of any who read his posts. This is alittle authoritarian, but there is nothing wrong with this, we are all alittle authoritarian.

All humans are alittle selfish and authoritarian therefore government cannot work. We don’t need banking monopolies, we don’t need socialism or capitalism, we need the freedom to grow our own food and decide on what will be our own money and that’s about it.

Last thought, all of your tax dollars go to killing people, locking people up in cells and making other people rich. It doesnt help the poor people, dont be naïve.

cld one day—millennia from now; hopefully starting tomorrow– money be replaced wit signature or handshake? i say yes! tnx

deadbeat,
i think all of u r just making conclusions about how money is being used. which is ok. but do say that u are concluding. u have concluded that money shld go. i have concluded that money is useful; thus, let’s use it!

I guess I don’t follow your logic. Aren’t you making a conclusion that money is “useful”. Can you explain why you believe that as clearly Capitalism is demonstrating the uselessness of money unless by “useful” you mean as a means of control.

Well at least this quote seems to have some kind of source unlike a lot of other popular Jackson “quotes.” But it might be worth reviewing just a few facts about Jackson, who has much more in common with Greenspan and Bernanke than popular myth seems to recognize.

Jackson vetoed the charter of the Second Bank and withdrew funds so that the Second Bank was destroyed. The result was that local and state banks took over and there was a huge expansion of credit and speculation which led to a boom in cotton production and other manufacturing. This was related to the undeveloped nature of much of the USA at that time. Jackson was a fervent advocate of th ethnic cleansing of American Indians, as well as a supporter of slavery. It was this ongoing imperial conquest of the Western Frontier which created the room for endless growth of capital, room which our world does not have today.

But once the speculation boom which Jackson set off, by derailing the Second Bank, had got going the result was massive inflation and state debts. Paper money was printed wildly by private banks which had no assets to back the notes up, and that was directly set in motion by Jackson’s vetoing of the Second Bank. This led to the panic of 1837 and a prolonged depression afterwards. Jackson was a stupid ideologue just like Ronald Reagan. The only thing which has saved his reputation was imperial conquest in the west that allowed the USA to gain new resources for greater expansion of capital. Reagan didn’t have a Western Frontier which he could go yahooing across, and that’swhy the long-term effects of Reagan stay with us whereas Jackson has quietly faded into the sunset.

It’s funny that many of the same people who can cover Jackson with apologetics for having set off a wild inflationary boom of speculation through deregulation (which is what his assault on the Second Bank was) will today cast stones at Greenspan & Bernanke for not following the example of, umm, Jackson? Pfft.

in talking about tax cuts, people offer guesses how is it going to do this or that. so, what’s wrong with saying: hey, i am merely guessing. or, say:
i’l respect ur guess if u respect my guess.
i guess that money is controlled by the top u.s class. so, if that indeed be so, and an inquiry by representatives of all classes determines that it is so; then, the same people can enact the law that all americans hav ethe right to control it.
u do not do this, the first baby step, why talk and only talk about baby’s 100th step towards liberation of americans.
can’t people on this site see that americans r not free! tnx

fat chance supremacists wld ever give up their ‘rights’ to lord over us. so. theorizing about role of banks and use of money appears hunting for snark! and with intent? tnx

You’re right that the supremacist are not going to give ground but ignorance is not bliss. What you label as “theorizing” is called discussion, debate, learning and understanding. Most people don’t understand the complexities of this issue and can be told anything. Commoner3′s remark help alter my initial opinion of this article.

This logic does not hold the water whatsoever. This swapping was done with newly PRINTED dollars and NOT with already existing dollars. So, in my humble opinion, this QE2 is inflationary. The money supply has increased by the amount of QE2 and that money went to the banks to help keep the mortgage rates down to prevent a free fall houses prices. In short QE2 is done for the banks and nobody else

After re-reading this I have to agree with commoner3. QE3 is obviously inflationary. What is going on is that Keynesian policy is being conducted by the Fed and recently Bernanke asked the Congress to provide fiscal stimulus.

The problem is that since the 1970′s the policy from the U.S. government “poisoned-pilled” classic Keynesian stimulus in favor of debt inflation both public and private. Even if there was a direct Keynesian stimulus, people are so far into debt that they still would not have enough disposable income to stimulate the economy. The money would be going through their hands and into the hands of the banks, debt collectors, and lawyers.

However since Washington is still heavily influenced by Reaganomics, there is no political to redistributed direct cash payment to people. Even now extending unemployment benefits is dead in the water and it looks as if the wealthy will get an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Much of Obama’s fiscal stimulus were in the form of tax cuts for the upper tier.

What QE2 is designed to do is to inflate the economy via asset prices. Since much of the new dollars goes to the banks it is the reason why the stock market is still trading well over 11,000 and why speculation still remains rampant. This gives the banks and other Capitalists the ability to BUY UP even more assets thus furthering the consolidating of the market that then leads to HIGHER prices and the economy becomes even more concentrated (Monopoly Capitalism) with the need for fewer jobs and thus higher unemployment.

What is needed is REDISTRIBUTION* however that “ugly” word is not within Ms. Brown lexicon nor is it in the circle that she appears (like Max Keiser) while these same right-wingers promote even further speculations in precious metals driving up its prices.

Ms. Brown writes …

Andrew Jackson would have said the government SHOULD be issuing the money itself, rather than borrowing from banks that issue it. If Congress gave itself the right under the Constitution to issue money, he said, “it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation.”

I’m not so sure that even if the government was issue its own currency that would make any difference to the current Capitalist crisis. The interest that the government pays to the FED is refunded back to the Treasury so that is essentially a wash and the FED is audited every year so they are held accountable.

The problem is that the Congress has been held hostage by ideologues and demagogues that has crippled fiscal policy have supported policies that have favored the rich and attacked the working class for the past 40 years. And even if the government did provide a real stimulus the economy behaves in such a chaotic manner that there is no guarantee that the fiscal stimulus would be put to use where it would be the most needed — like in poor minority communities.

The main reason for the large debts accumulated for the past 30 years are as following:

[1] Tax cuts for the rich…
This provided more money for the rich to speculate thus inflating the power of the financial sector.

[2] Attacks on workers thus furthering their exploitation…
Workers were left having to BORROW money (rising personal debt) in order to make ends meet. This also allow the financial sector to lay claims to workers income and thus even further diminished disposable incomes. The attack on workers also diminished their political power.

[3] Huge military expenditures.

If you reverse the aforementioned trends you’ll see some improvements. However since in the short term that seems unlikely commoner3 is absolutely correct that QE2 will be paid for via AUSTERITY.

* Actually what is needed is a revolution and totally scraping Capitalism but that’s another discussion. But even if you apply “Liberal” solutions what is needed is not only a repeal of the Bush tax cuts but the Reagan tax cuts as well. Even a right-winger like Kevin Phillips recognized this in back 1989 with his book The Politics of the Rich and Poor.

and if we wld be allowed to participate in managing our money [it seems, it is "theirs" now] we cld also be in on how many hospitals, buses, soldiers, wmd, warships, etc., we need.

fat chance supremacists wld ever give up their ‘rights’ to lord over us. so. theorizing about role of banks and use of money appears hunting for snark! and with intent? tnx

Zimbabwe crisis, like the rest of the African and some Asian countries – are the creation of western colonial legacy.

Zimbabwe was not topic of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media until it changes its friendship from Israel to Iran.

Mugabe’s journey from Tel Aviv to Tehran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/mugabes-journey-from-tel-aviv-to-tehran/

No, says Cullen Roche, because swapping dollars for bonds does not change the size of the money supply. A dollar bill and a dollar bond are essentially the same thing. One bears interest and is a little less liquid than the other, but both are obligations good for a dollar’s worth of goods or services in the economy….”
——————————————————————————
Ms. Brown:
This logic does not hold the water whatsoever. This swapping was done with newly PRINTED dollars and NOT with already existing dollars. So, in my humble opinion, this QE2 is inflationary. The money supply has increased by the amount of QE2 and that money went to the banks to help keep the mortgage rates down to prevent a free fall houses prices. In short QE2 is done for the banks and nobody else
What is happening now is that the ruling elite will try to metigate that inflation by “austerity measures” , which means shaving more money from the average people. Freezing Federal employees’ salaries, the proposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare etc etc …is first steps in that direction and the economy will stagnate and it might shrinks!!!