Congratulations! Your comment on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Republicans: Do Your Job has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Republicans: Do Your Job, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, bill moyers-elizabeth warren vs hillary clinton-2004, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

As always, my views are just a layman's perspective with no claims to expertise.

@RedSky

You correctly point out the intent of the reform, to stop fractional banking which they diagnosed as a primary driver of volatility within the financial sector. They want to revert back to a system where the banks were intermediaries the way you described it: deposit leads to loan, in this case at a maximum ratio of 1:1, no leveraging.

Unlike the current system where bank deposits are mostly created by banks themselves -- the act of lending creates deposits. In fact, deposits are liabilities of the banks, not assets. Reserves are assets, but they are only traded between entities with accounts at the central bank. And, in normal times, are provided quite freely by the central bank in exchange for other assets.

Anyway, "Vollgeld" places the ability to create money exclusively in the hands of the central bank. Controlling the amount of money in circulation was a concept most central banks were eager to drop during the '90s, since it never worked. Demand for credit is volatile, central control is inflexible, even if they could somehow quanfity the need for it ex ante -- which they can't. Hell, they can't even do it ex post. You can't quantify the need for additional money beyond what's already in circulation if the central bank's action set the conditions for a dynamic development in the first place. You can't know in advance what increases in production need to be financed, you can't know how demand for liquidity evolves over time. The quantity theory of money was buried for a reason, it ignores reality.

Anyway, I applaud the proponents of Vollgeld for pointing out the dysfunctionalities of our fractional reserve system as well as how questionable it is, ethically, to hand over so much power to a small cabal of financial elites. In fact, I'm quite ecstatic to hear them point out that a nation with a sovereign, free-floating currency does not need to finance deficits through banks -- how very MMT of them. Go OMF!

But their proposed solutions are a fallback to "the market will stabilise itself if left alone, a completely independant central bank will keep the quantity of money in circulation at just the right amount". This hands-off approach resulted in absolute devastation whenever it was applied. They want to turn the state into a regular economic subject that has to adapt to the amount of money currently in circulation. It's (the illusion of) control by technocrats, where you get to disguise policies against the masses as "economic neccessities". Basically the German Eurozone on steroids.

As for the absolute independence of the central bank: you are right, that is not strictly part of the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. But it's what almost every proponent of Vollgeld within the German-speaking circles argues for, including major drivers behind the initiative. Can't let politicians have control over our central bank or else they'll abuse it for populist policies.

They are true believers in technocrat solutions, completely seperate from democratic control.

PS: I cut down my ranting to a minimum of MMT arguments, given that many people see it as just a different sort of voodoo economics.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass Steagal Act strikes me as a rather promising way to solve a great number of problems with the financial industry without going back into the realm of monetarism.

Congratulations! Your video, senator elizabeth warren dropping truthbombs, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 13 Badge!

Your video, senator elizabeth warren dropping truthbombs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment on the Elizabeth warren speech that has everyone talking has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

And that somehow negates Warren's support of the Ex-Im Bank how, exactly?

But fine. You don't like Mercatus' take on Ex-Im, how about Rolling Stone's very own Wall St. lefty, Matt Taibbi's, take on the Ex-Im Bank which he describes as "A federal slush fund that gives away massive low-interest loans to companies that a) don't need the money and b) have repeatedly made gigantic contributions to the right people."

Yup, sounds like something any true "Champion" against Corportatism would want to support. <eyeroll>

EDIT: Why would you even argue the point? Are you that naive??

Warren is a "Champion" against Corporatism, and yet she supports the Ex-Im Bank that gives $8.3 billion to Boeing and $2.6 billion to GE (Mercatus Scholars on the Export-Import Bank). Because, y'know.. logic and consistency. "The people's" support of Warren is support for all of those entities that make her employment as a politician possible. In other words, "the people's" support of Warren (regardless of her rhetoric or polemical attempts at persuading a disenfranchised Left) is, in fact, support for all of those entities which make her career as a politician possible (i.e., the very corporatist relationships she rails against, while simultaneously supporting with favorable legislation). Despite all the rhetoric, make no mistake that Warren knows exactly where her bread gets buttered.

(While this is fairly basic stuff for most if not all of politics-as-usual, it's just so deliciously blatant with someone like Warren that it's too satisfying to resist pointing out.)

Congratulations! Your video, the Elizabeth warren speech that has everyone talking, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 10 Badge!

If Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren as VP, and they somehow collided with McCain / Palin, I'm pretty sure it would rip a hole in the space time continuum.


edit...also, yeah, credit unions are great. Most people probably have access to one and don't even know about it.

Your video, the Elizabeth warren speech that has everyone talking, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Elizabeth Warren: Dropping the hammer!!!!

bored..

siftory lesson :

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-Interviews-Elizabeth-Warren

Basically @RFlagg I see it happening in one of two ways. If Republicans continue to lose elections, especially the white house, if the political fallout from the shutdown is large enough, the Republicans will lose congress as well. Republicans will either: 1) fade into history. or 2) Republicans will whip their low information voters into a frenzy, playing the tyranny card and eventually there *will* be an attempt at an armed revolt, but since it won't have any real popular support, it will fail relatively quickly but it will have the additional effect that Republicans will be blamed for any deaths caused by this revolt and there will be a huge exodus from the GOP and they will be ostracized from American society. They'll still exist of course, but they'll have the same relevance as the KKK, or the people who still think the world is flat and it's just a huge conspiracy.

2016 is going to be an important election, If Dems can still retain the white house for another 8 years, it's going to be another huge blow to the Republicans, especially when their last stated singular goal was to make Obama a 1 term president and failed.

and quite honestly, I'm not sure it will happen like I was sure Obama would get re-elected. Hilary just...shouldn't run IMO, her time is past. Elizabeth Warren would have a good shot at it. But I also think Dems need to find a new voice. Someone who, like Obama, who actually did embrace the internet and social media and used it very much to his advantage.

If you win the internet, you win the vote. They've got to keep the pressure up. Quite honestly, the 2008 and 2012 elections were easy, It was easy to get the left riled up when clueless Sarah Palin or Robot Romney were running. But I suspect the right will eventually learn from their mistake and run someone who actually is semi-relatable

I just think it's very likely Dems will get cocky and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. So.....don't get cocky kid.