Are central banks necessary?

Anyone with an IQ over 120 should have realised by now that money is what keeps us from advancing as a specie.

Oh wow, I can go out and buy a thousand bux of t bills, I'll be just like those bankers in no time!

The only thing that should stop me from buying treasury bills of a given country is not having citizenship in that country. No external forces should own a country's debt.

The bankers didn't get rich by buying t bills either, so it's not government debt that's the real problem.

This

>Anyone who's read the bible

Fixed that for you

>1 Timoty 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Kilowatt-hour.

>Bank of England
Was unique in banking history as during its founding near the start of the Reformation expanded the money supply at 0% interest in most cases and this was what actually built the British empire. Meanwhile, the Vatican controlled banks that implemented usury soon after the crusades to redistribute the stolen wealth with strings attached were always reluctant to do this, they started lending at 3% simple interest so not skewing their monetary systems too much. However by 1800 a true global banking system began to manifest and today is controlled primarily by the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. Switzerland probably because they have ancient currency systems that go all the way back to salt as a currency about 800CE.
They also have the west by the balls and in a way cannot even control their own system anymore as most money is now created as debt, and with any rate of interest compounded sometimes up to 30% or more, it's always time bomb, like a game of musical chairs when the debt is called in. The first global economic debt crises happened to start WW1 and they will be fairly regular from here on out probably until the entire system is reinvented and the parasitic banks purged, usury outlawed again.

>Anyone who is read the bible
>?
Take the apostrophe off and it's still difficult to understand what you're trying to say. I have a vauge idea I think but like yea

>trips nice
Rothschild opened the Bank of England

Except money IS specie, you dummy!

I like this idea, using energy as currency

Why don't you read some actual economic theory OP rather than just taking Austrian retards on the internet seriously? These people reject empirics as a matter of principle.

>Are central banks necessary?
Of course not. They're just one more form of centralization of power.

>Why do we allow private entities to make money from huge national debts?
It arises from an alignment of interests between the rich and the powerful.

>Are there alternatives to fiat currency that don't rely on gold?
Of course. Historically, a single currency isn't normal, and commerce would be conducted with multiple metals (at least copper and silver) plus local commodity currencies, such as grain. This is what arises from a free currency market, and it's what works the best. It would work even better with today's instant worldwide communication and computerized bookkeeping/negotiation/matchmaking.

Natural money transactions, as a kind of advanced barter, have an inherent foundation of rationality lacking in fiat money transactions. You want copper, silver, and gold coins not just because other people want them, but because you can melt them down to make useful or pleasant things.

Powerful governments tend to suppress natural money because it makes tax collection more difficult and the people more independent, and also because they have no way to skim value by debasing it.

The gold standard was a step away from natural money and toward fiat money. If we go back to natural money, I think it's unlikely that we'll pass through the gold standard on the way back to it.

dictionary.com/browse/who-s

kek
DUBS OF TRUTH

Central banks are a stage capitalism goes thru. They provided considerable advantages when they were initiated, but it's arguable that they're no longer needed since international finance is such a huge thing nowadays.

Not that faggot but no, it's not unsustainable, for two reasons: The national ban has no future outside the state, and is therefore a 100% secure "bet", and secondly because the "debt" the government owes the bank is an accountancy measure, it's not "real" debt and while defaulting on it would destabilise the economy because the flow of money would be disrupted, there's no actual "risk" in the financial sense involved. No government would winningly do it because, again, the "debt" is not actually money owed but a mechanism to ensure the supply of money remains volatile.

Does Rothchild still own or work for the BoE? He was the greatest financier of his day, no matter what you may think of him he was a financial wizzkid and so the perfect person to draft the BoE's charter.

It's complicated. You absolutely need them if you're operating on debased currency. If you're not, then they're of questionable utility. They have a long history of being alternately either too loose or tight with money creation and causing entire societies to crumble.

Right now, ours is nothing more than a printing press for the ultra-wealthy.

>Are central banks necessary?
Yeah, in most places the central bank is government owned and its just a monetary policy branch of the government, which will then control the monetary flow into the economy and intervene in exchange rates (in the case of countries not called the USA)

>Why do we allow private entities to make money from huge national debts?
Because debt allows leverage, such leverage allows the government to spend on public programs more than it could with just its national income, therefore boosting development, in theory anyway.
There is no knife in the throat here mate, governments want to do X, so they employ Y and promise to pay Z to the owner of Y in a certain amount of time, since governments have infinite lives, they can just keep rolling the debt forever, never truly being free of it, never getting broken by it.

>Are there alternatives to fiat currency that don't rely on gold?
Digital currency

m m m

Interesting concept. The first rule could be to limit the percent of energy that goes into maintaining and running the system, say 1%, leaving the 99% of remaining energy to be used for practical purposes instead of feeding the financial management parasite.

Then again you could just invest in energy stocks now.