3 ms·

$541M Dollars Printed Everyday – Where Does It Go?

16 points by acob 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
iaw 8y ago
There's a fair amount of editorializing in this post that isn't born out by the limited references included. One example is this line: "Why was this all done in secret? Simply put, the American people did not want a Central Bank. In 1910, unlike today, people had a better understanding of exactly central banking was and what it tried to do." That's a pretty strong claim that I'd love to see justified using appropriate references but, even if they exist, the author doesn't appropriate link them to their claims.
acob 8y ago
I'm not sure 1 line in a 3,000-word article is a fair amount? Especially considering, the research I have concluded makes this seem like a fairly popular common public opinion of the day.
- iaw 8y ago
  That was the one line I picked, if you did a fair amount of research please add citations in line. Quickly, a couple other lines that are editorializing without adequate references: "Inflation is the tax we all pay for the fraud of money printing." "We currently operate under what is widely known as the debt-based monetary system, this system has a requirement that debt continues to grow. The system relies on people getting further into debt which in essence creates more money into the system." My opinion about central banks and their background can be changed but it requires a lot more citation to justify your reasoning. This article is trying to further an agenda associated with crypto-currencies while stating opinions as fact without appropriate references. It's not poorly written but it is poorly referenced.
  - acob 8y ago
    Thank you for your time. I really appreciate you taking a read and providing feedback. Admittedly I am more of a tech nerd than a formal writer. Recommendations have been noted, and I look to improve in future posts.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm not sure 1 line in a 3,000-word article is a fair amount? Assuming this is a misplaced reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231623 — there is more than one line of editorializing in the article; virtually every sentence in the article contains either editorializing or fact claims that don't seem grounded in the few cited sources, and some contain both.
lucozade 8y ago
Assuming you're not intentionally being disingenuous, can I suggest that you put the bit where you say you don't really know much about central banking and money supply nearer the top? As a piece where you're writing down what you've found out so far, it's fine. As a piece that's intended to be genuinely informative about modern money supply, it's substantially less so.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The Bankers also passively fought against Congress, by putting clauses in the bill that limited their power and removed them completely once the bill was passed. That's...a quite implausible claim, supported by no cited evidence of any kind. (And not unique in the article in that respect.) Much of this reads like the kind of conspiracy theories goldbugs have long spread that were later adopted by the cryptocurrency community, and is not supported by the few sources you list at the end (but do not specifically cite for particular claims.)
olog-hai 8y ago
Re the title, "$" and "dollars" are redundant, and you might want to Google every day vs. everyday.
crypto1082 8y ago
I think this was a good read and well written. It is hard to summarize such a concept as our banking system is allowed to print money in the form of paper assets (loans) and then cash it in for low interest debt through fractional reserve lending. The part left out and where I'd like to see the article go if expanded, is the public company stocks and bonds. People are separated into the haves and have nots through the accredited investor distinction and have nots are mandated to use the 401k type retirement plan which is usually backed by another form of printed asset called a stock. Then some dude/chick is appointed control over that empire as a CEO making a huge amount of that stock guaranteed win or lose with the company. He pays the labor force, which can be quite substantial, with cash derived from selling those paper assets to the workers 401ks and then borrows on bonds backed by it from the banks who turn those loans into fake money at the fed. I saw one comment about a tin hat scenario. I may not be spot on 100% with how it works, but this is how it appears to work to me. This broken system is what I think crypto can fix. When you think about how much actual power crypto puts in the peoples hands... basically the power of a federal reserve, it is not that hard to imagine the restof the infrastructure forming around it. Only this time it has something that the fed does not - a true intrinsic value. As ridiculous as it sounds that computers processing power values the currency - is it not a lot less ridiculous than the concepts outlines in this article? After reading the bitcoin whitepaper and realizing the hash protected the network and turns would be bad actors into a support mechanism, I realized that crypto is so much better than a central bank system. As we decentralize the surrounding industries to this new type of federal reserve we might be able to get the value back into the money we use.

16 points by acob 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

iaw 8y ago

There's a fair amount of editorializing in this post that isn't born out by the limited references included. One example is this line: "Why was this all done in secret? Simply put, the American people did not want a Central Bank. In 1910, unlike today, people had a better understanding of exactly central banking was and what it tried to do." That's a pretty strong claim that I'd love to see justified using appropriate references but, even if they exist, the author doesn't appropriate link them to their claims.

acob 8y ago

I'm not sure 1 line in a 3,000-word article is a fair amount? Especially considering, the research I have concluded makes this seem like a fairly popular common public opinion of the day.

iaw 8y ago
That was the one line I picked, if you did a fair amount of research please add citations in line. Quickly, a couple other lines that are editorializing without adequate references: "Inflation is the tax we all pay for the fraud of money printing." "We currently operate under what is widely known as the debt-based monetary system, this system has a requirement that debt continues to grow. The system relies on people getting further into debt which in essence creates more money into the system." My opinion about central banks and their background can be changed but it requires a lot more citation to justify your reasoning. This article is trying to further an agenda associated with crypto-currencies while stating opinions as fact without appropriate references. It's not poorly written but it is poorly referenced.
- acob 8y ago
  Thank you for your time. I really appreciate you taking a read and providing feedback. Admittedly I am more of a tech nerd than a formal writer. Recommendations have been noted, and I look to improve in future posts.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm not sure 1 line in a 3,000-word article is a fair amount? Assuming this is a misplaced reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18231623 — there is more than one line of editorializing in the article; virtually every sentence in the article contains either editorializing or fact claims that don't seem grounded in the few cited sources, and some contain both.

lucozade 8y ago

Assuming you're not intentionally being disingenuous, can I suggest that you put the bit where you say you don't really know much about central banking and money supply nearer the top? As a piece where you're writing down what you've found out so far, it's fine. As a piece that's intended to be genuinely informative about modern money supply, it's substantially less so.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The Bankers also passively fought against Congress, by putting clauses in the bill that limited their power and removed them completely once the bill was passed. That's...a quite implausible claim, supported by no cited evidence of any kind. (And not unique in the article in that respect.) Much of this reads like the kind of conspiracy theories goldbugs have long spread that were later adopted by the cryptocurrency community, and is not supported by the few sources you list at the end (but do not specifically cite for particular claims.)

olog-hai 8y ago

Re the title, "$" and "dollars" are redundant, and you might want to Google every day vs. everyday.

crypto1082 8y ago

I think this was a good read and well written. It is hard to summarize such a concept as our banking system is allowed to print money in the form of paper assets (loans) and then cash it in for low interest debt through fractional reserve lending. The part left out and where I'd like to see the article go if expanded, is the public company stocks and bonds. People are separated into the haves and have nots through the accredited investor distinction and have nots are mandated to use the 401k type retirement plan which is usually backed by another form of printed asset called a stock. Then some dude/chick is appointed control over that empire as a CEO making a huge amount of that stock guaranteed win or lose with the company. He pays the labor force, which can be quite substantial, with cash derived from selling those paper assets to the workers 401ks and then borrows on bonds backed by it from the banks who turn those loans into fake money at the fed. I saw one comment about a tin hat scenario. I may not be spot on 100% with how it works, but this is how it appears to work to me. This broken system is what I think crypto can fix. When you think about how much actual power crypto puts in the peoples hands... basically the power of a federal reserve, it is not that hard to imagine the restof the infrastructure forming around it. Only this time it has something that the fed does not - a true intrinsic value. As ridiculous as it sounds that computers processing power values the currency - is it not a lot less ridiculous than the concepts outlines in this article? After reading the bitcoin whitepaper and realizing the hash protected the network and turns would be bad actors into a support mechanism, I realized that crypto is so much better than a central bank system. As we decentralize the surrounding industries to this new type of federal reserve we might be able to get the value back into the money we use.