Re: Re: IMF chief says failure to raise US borrowing limit...

[Guest guest]

Good points. The thing is that most aid has ended up causing more problems that it solved. Food and medical aid has caused populations to explode beyond what the land can support and created a sense of dependency on the aid, which has in part today manifested in the desire by the UN to steal tens of trillions from the West to give to the Third World, all disguised under fighting climate change.

Farming practices brought in to try to make the people self-sustaining ended up ruining the land. As a result of that and the continuing population expansion, forests and jungles are being rapidly cut down as people seek new farmland to wear out and also firewood.

Giving money and supplies to governments just means most of it ends up in the bureaucrats' and leaders' pockets while they steal food for themselves and building material meant for schools and hospitals to build themselves mansions. The rest they spend on a military to repress their miserable people and wage war against neighbors.

A global bank wouldn't solve any of that but would only make things far worse. I think the only way out really is for, say, the US government to set up a panel that would replace the federal reserve. It would be a small panel made up of mostly conservative economists and bankers. They would decide how much to expand the money supply over a period of years based on economic growth, to a maximum of 4%, which is considered to be "overheating." this would more or less simulate a gold standard. By the same token, bank would have a tight fractional reserve of not more than 4 to 1 and it would be fixed. This would prevent the currency from inflating so much when new money is introduced into the system, unlike the common 10 to 1 reserve in banks, or the 53 to 1 in the Fed now. Leverage for investments would likewise be limited by the same amount. Lastly, there would be no fixed interest rate but banks would have to decide that on their own to draw customers based on their reserves and interest rates like it use to be when the banks worked well. There would be no lender of last resort either, for banks. Something like and FDIC could still exist but only to customers and not the banks and their owners.

In a message dated 7/11/2011 10:39:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Right, because if all the world's peoples are the bank's customers, about 90% of them are bad credit risks.

Administrator