Good Afternoon Marty! Although you didn't ask me, I thought I might chime in to answer your questions. I don't speak for Bruce, and don't know specifically what he might say with regard to your questions, but I do know that Bruce seems to hold conservative libertarian viewpoints, and I would tend to believe that he will concur with what I write. First:
*Marty wrote:* Do you really believe that every single member of those committees caused the crisis on purpose? Don't you think that we might be able to find a few true patriots on those committees who might help us -- by giving us good advice about what can be done to solve our current problems. ===== Keith Responds: Marty, the answer to this, in a nutshell, is Yes. To date, there is not one Senator or Congressman who can with good conscience or with a straight face, support our current progressive taxation system, in lieu of the Fair Tax Legislation, which was proposed by Senator Saxby Chambliss and Congressman John Linder (R. Ga). You might be familiar with the Fair Tax Legislation, talk show host and attorney Neal Boortz has written a book in conjunction with Congressman Linder, which would repeal the 16th Amendment, as well as make sweeping changes to the IRS, and also do away with the current Internal Revenue Code, as well as a progressive income tax. The reason that ALL members of the Congress who have opposed the Fair Tax Legislation, is because it would diminish the Congress's power, especially with those who are from the lower socio-economic strata; *e.g*.; promising those who pay little taxes in the first place, that they are going to be given "tax breaks". This is a simplified answer, but there are various and sundry reasons why most Congressmen are opposed, none of which are good for our Nation, and all of which continue to allow the Congress to have a stronger control and persuasion over working class Americans. Further, if you look at that happened during the Clinton Administration era, and the Congress that was in place at the time, (*e.g*.; the 105th and 106th Congress) followed by the Bush Administration, and the subesquent Congress(es); (*e.g*.; the 107th, 108th and 109th Congresses) many of which are still members of the Congress to date, there is no question that these individuals were attempting to inflict socialistic policies upon America, and it was by design, and with forethought. The likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Lacey Clay, Maxine Waters, Charles Schumer and other Democrats had the intent to allow the folks who could not afford their own home to purchase one, under the guise of the Community Reinvestment Act. This is well documented, I have written numerous "blog" entries over it, and will be happy to provide you with the documentation if you are interested or have not seen what I have written previously. =========================== *Marty then writes:* you do not like my plan -- please either tell me why -- or submit a plan of your own, in the hopes that someone in this group will be willing to help you. =================== Keith Responds: Marty, I have read your web page, and I find it interesting. I have even posted it to the group, and for those members who have not seen it, here is Marty's well thought out synopsis of what is wrong with our economy, and initiatives that might correct our current plight: http://www.alphabeticalist.com/Money%20Section/howtosolve.html First, you discuss a number of issues that are complicated, and are hard to grasp. I am not an economist, so it is especially hard for me to grasp some of the concepts that you share. By example, you say: *"There is no reason why the United States can’t have a 0% reserve requirement. In the U.S.A., the reserve requirement is zero to 3% until the bank has $10 million in deposits and 10% thereafter. See item #16.3 and the URL listed there."* In my opinion, this is one of the reasons that we are currently in the financial debacle that we face today. Even though portions of the "Glass-Stegall Act" were repealed, to wit: Section 20 - which prohibited any member bank from affiliating in specific ways with an investment bank; and, Section 32 - which prohibited investment bank directors, officers, employees, or principals from serving in those capacities at a commercial member bank of the Federal Reserve System; The fact remains that under current regulation, all banks must still maintain a quarter of their business in investments, and the collateral that is utilized for guaranteeing loans, as we have recently seen, was not sufficient. As I understand it, you are advocating that banks, (and I am still confused with the term that you use, "Narrow Bank"; which by definition is A bank that handles only basic banking and does not get involved in complex investment programs); should be allowed to continue such practices, in other words, allow for banks to offer loans that are not capitalized, and I am adamantly opposed to this. Just as important, if you go and study how our Federal Reserve even defines and describes how money is created, it is by the amount of loans that individual financial institutions loan out. Are you are suggesting that loans be created without any collateral, or with nominal or minimal collateral? I am familiar with President Jackson's opposition to a federal central bank. I am not aware of President Jackson being in favor of what you seem to be advocating!! You then go on to say, that you are advocating these "Narrow Banks" having the ability to, (and I quote:) ** *"9.* There is no reason why the United States can’t have a 0% reserve requirement. In the U.S.A., the reserve requirement is zero to 3% until the bank has $10 million in deposits and 10% thereafter. See item #16.3 and the URL listed there. *10.* If the loans are used to create or protect wealth equal in value (at market prices) to the amount of the loans -- *there will be no inflation*. We think this is plain common sense describing a situation where money and wealth are balanced. But beware, many economists and experts think this is economic heresy. They dogmatically argue that the creation of any new money is inflationary. " Once again, I beg to differ, on several different levels. First, a bank with only one million in assets, which is what you are saying a "Narrow Bank" can intially start out with and offer, (and you make it clear that these Narrow Banks would not offer loans for personal items such as jewelry, but only for real property) could not offer more than several loans, in that one million dollars isn't a whole lotta capital anymore, in 2009! Second, you then requre a bank who has 10 million dollars to all of the sudden be required to have ten percent of assets in order to collateralize its loans, but a Narrow Bank with only one million is required to have zero percent? I fail to follow the logic...... A couple of more points: I am unaware of any federal bonds paying 6 percent. Currently, for 2008-2009, the annual rate is approximately 2.01 percent. I don't understand where you are getting a return on investment of 35 percent......Nothing remotely suggests this from what I am reading in your article. How does your plan tie into paying for social security or medicare, or did I misread this somewhere else? Are you suggesting that Americans have an inherent right to health care? On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, martycarbone <[email protected]>wrote: > > Bruce -- I asked three questions in my response to your first email. > Unless you answer those questions, I must conclude that you are not > serious about communicating and I will herewith terminate our > discussion. > > Marty > > On Mar 27, 1:56 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > you know you need to read some public choice theory so you will > understand > > the institutional incentives of government bureaucracies > > > > you do know that most congresscritter are millionaires and many make > money > > serving on corporate boards and engaging in business and real estate > deals > > where they use government and regulation to create opportunities for > > themselves > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:44 PM, martycarbone <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 11:19 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: but > > > the people on the congressional committee's caused the crisis so they > > > could expand their power why would they want a solution > > > > > My response follows: > > > > > Bruce --- Do you really believe that every single member of those > > > committees caused the crisis on purpose? Don't you think that we might > > > be able to find a few true patriots on those committees who might help > > > us -- by giving us good advice about what can be done to solve our > > > current problems. > > > > > What is the purpose of your response to my email. > > > > > Are you saying I should give up on my plans to go to Washington? > > > > > If you do not like my plan -- please either tell me why -- or submit a > > > plan of your own, in the hopes that someone in this group will be > > > willing to help you. > > > > > Marty Carbone <<[email protected]>> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:07 AM, martycarbone < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > List buddies, > > > > > > > I have been working hard on figuring out the current Money and > Banking > > > > > crisis and have come up with some plans that my wife and I plan to > > > > > take to Washington, D.C. in May. We plan to present the plans to > each > > > > > member of both Congressional Banking Committees > > > > > > > One of the plans involves plain old common people starting State- > > > > > Chartered, Narrow Banks under existing laws and regulations. No new > > > > > laws are needed to put this plan into existence. > > > > > > > I envision the first group of banks being given charters to open > banks > > > > > that would be chartered solely to give 4% mortgages on > single-family, > > > > > owner-occupied homes. > > > > > > > Because of the enormous leverage involved in bank lending -- the > > > > > profits that such loans would generate are enormous. I figure > > > > > something like 35% on the invested capital is likely. This is based > on > > > > > the fact that all banks can lend 10 times the amount of its > invested > > > > > capital and the operating of such a narrow bank will have minimum > > > > > expense. > > > > > > > I anticipate and recommend that the charter would limit the actual > > > > > cash returns to the bank stockholders to 6% -- with the other 29% > > > > > being used for the common good -- primarily to go into a fund that > > > > > would go toward nationwide Healthcare and Social Security > Insurance. > > > > > > > It occurs to me that someone on this list might like to open the > first > > > > > bank of this type. > > > > > > > You can see a rough draft of this plan at > > > > >http://www.alphabeticalist.com/Money%20Section/howtosolve.html > > > > > I am working on the plan -- so the website version is not the > final > > > > > version. > > > > > > > The first page of the website has a link to another "Silver Bullet > > > > > Plan" and gives my general ideas on the subject of Money and > Banking. > > > > > You will find links to all sorts of solid information on the > subject. > > > > > <<http://www.alphabeticalist.com>> > > > > > > > My background is at > > > > > <<http://www.alphabeticalist.com/backgroundMRC.html>> > > > > > > > This is a pro-bono project for me. I have no financial interest or > > > > > profit motive in any of this. > > > > > > > I would appreciate comments, suggestions and advice from list > members. > > > > > > > Do any of you know your way around Washington? > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Marty Carbone / [email protected] / 760-603-1910 > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
