Somebody prove this wrong please.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(22-04-2013 01:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  While it would be nice, it never has happened, and it will never happen.

You're making an absolute truth statement about that which you haven't experienced.

Evidence, please.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(22-04-2013 03:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Dom: Life is not fair. Fairness is an artificial substance produced by humans, if they make an effort. Fairness is like a computer, it is artificial, yet real and good.

Money system can work and it did work for a long time. However, it is an ancient technology that imposes its own limitations.
- It introduces another kind of scarcity, the lack of capital and another kind of inequality among people, the rich and poor divide.
- It favors short-term projects before long term.
- It favors commercial projects, everything must be profitable, or it won't exist.
- It favors people who are already rich.
- Money is a brute force deciphering mechanism of determining what's profitable. Once discovered, the profitable concept is often exploited ad nauseam to get more money, instead of developing it further.
- It makes people waste resources by having to start a business of their own and compete against other people. In comparison, a moral monopoly is very efficient.
- It compels people to drop quality of their services when they have no competition, as opposed to other means of production - such as by soulless automatic machines.
- It is the root of all evil Evil_monster

I have just finished an essay for my economy professor, where I show how capitalism is a self-corrupting system. Civilization is basically a big market bubble. The more property we have, the more state power we need to defend it. Eventually the state decides it can protect your property better if it's nationalized and that's the beginning of socialism. But then nobody bothers to work in a socialism. Businessmen, employers run away.

What is the solution?
1. Donate lots of money to Jacque Fresco to make a big movie about how it is like for a normal family to live in a resource-based economy.
2. Pressure states and businessmen to donate even more money to Fresco, so that he can build a prototype city and prove the concept in practice.
3. Once the concept is proven to work, redesign the Earth through overwhelming wave of public and political demand.

It makes sense, because money is a great mechanism of finding out what is needed, what is profitable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but things like food, housing, healthcare, education and transportation have been a great market success for about... 7 000 years or so. We already know we need these things. So why shouldn't we design our cities to provide these needs by default, as a fundamental part of design? Every Libertarian should be delighted to see that. Libertarians are glad to be put out of work, because it allows them to find a much better work. This is what it is, basically. A redesign of civilization to free people from primary, secondary and most of the tertiary sector of economy. We already know how these sectors work, we have the technology and resources and we should apply them to make the sectors take care of themselves. We don't need money to facilitate and coordinate this work anymore.

Lemme know when you've figured out how to create incentive among those who aren't interested in wealth and at the same time have been able to limit the incentive for the same so that all people fall into your idea of the perfect recipe for a shared resource economy.

Oh and, you'll have to do it without guns and prisons, to meet your criteria (which I agree with) and you will never do it without a medium of exchange that allows the person with chickens to trade his labor and goods to a person who cares nothing for chickens or eggs.

So in the end, how will you create a peaceful society that uses neither money nor coercion?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2013, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2013 10:16 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(22-04-2013 08:35 AM)bemore Wrote:  Firstly I acknowledge that this really belongs in the business and economics section, however seeing as it doesnt get that much traffic can I request that it stay here for a short while before/if it gets moved.

People may have heard me yabber on about how "Money is created from nothing" and how my vision of a fairer world would be to eliminate interest from lending (or make banks local co-operatives)

I understand that some people may frown upon my open mindedness to certain subjects however this place has helped me evolve my "third person" way of viewing things. Whilst to some I may be scoffed at for my views and considered a "conspiracy theorist" (which I don't mind... your bias, not mine) I understand that people want fact to get their teeth into facts to assimilate.

So no Jewish rothchild bloodlines, no flouride in the water, no reasons for war other than "freedom", no chemtrails poisoning the land..... nothing but facts.

If anybody does wrap their heads around and understand the link I shall provide at the end of this thread I have two questions.

1: Do you think that the current system is fair.
2: How do we change it?

You can either read the information or you can watch a series of videos explaining it a bit more easily.

Balance sheets.....

http://www.positivemoney.org/how-banks-c...ce-sheets/

Videos.

http://www.positivemoney.org/how-banks-c...eo-course/

Merci Thumbsup

I don't know what you are asking, but the video/article, seems to have a problem with the money supply. That or maybe just that people don't have a great understanding, or an antiquated understanding, about how banking works.

If you are asking whether or not I have a problem with that (the way banks create money), I'd probably lean towards no, and the only thing that would be obvious to do, would be to put back in place a lot of the protections and controls.

The obvious problem with banking/financial sector in general, today, seems to be the fact that there is absolutely no law or accountability for blatantly immoral, negligent or otherwise destructive behaviors; not only that, but there is actually incentive and reward for that negative behavior.

Looking elsewhere, there is less of that going on, and that makes it unfair. The obvious solution to that is simply take away the incentives for bad behavior and put in place punishments, similar to what every other part of society has to deal with.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
24-04-2013, 08:28 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(22-04-2013 08:35 AM)bemore Wrote:  Firstly I acknowledge that this really belongs in the business and economics section, however seeing as it doesnt get that much traffic can I request that it stay here for a short while before/if it gets moved.

We have a Business and Economics section?

Why?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2013, 11:37 PM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
Quote:my vision of a fairer world would be to eliminate interest from lending

As I have explained many times, THIS will never happen.
Interest is the value we put on risk.
When you lend money to someone there is inherit risk that you will not get your money back. The risk is comprised of two major points, how much you lend the person or company and the riskiness of the person you are lending too.

If there was no interest on lending there would be NO lending.
That means no mortgages, so no house for you, no new business and progress would be extremely slow.
You think it's favoritism towards rich people now?? Just wait till the only people that can actually afford things like houses are rich people. All poor people would be renting, further in control "of their rich slave masters"...

Interest free loaning is the stupidest fucking idea ever to come out of your mouth Bemore.


And banks do not create money. Yes they charge interest on things like mortgages, but that is literally no different to a convince store buying something at $1.50 and selling it to you for $2. NO DIFFERENT.
If you want to go after banks, go after every other business that sells something.

And no they cannot lend more then they have.
You put your money into the bank. The bank then pools that money with everyone else's money. They then lend your money (or 90% of it, due to 10% must be held for withdrawals by law) to other people for things like personal loans and mortgages. They charge interest and in return pay you interest for having your money in the bank. They also invest money etc..
But they can't use more money then what they have pooled together from everyone's money in the bank.
This is why banks can fail.

The only difference between a bank and a convince store is that the bank's product is money, people who put money in the bank are suppliers (and are paid via interest) and a banks customers are people who want to borrow money. The convince store's supplier is coke cola or whoever, it's product is food products, it's customer is whoever buys them.
No different.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 12:54 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(24-04-2013 11:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And no they cannot lend more then they have.

They can and they do. Typically by a factor of ten. Though they are usually required to hold about ten percent of their assets in cash, they do indeed lend more than they have. Thus, if a bank has 10 million on deposit, it can lend 90 million.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 01:44 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(25-04-2013 12:54 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:37 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And no they cannot lend more then they have.

They can and they do. Typically by a factor of ten. Though they are usually required to hold about ten percent of their assets in cash, they do indeed lend more than they have. Thus, if a bank has 10 million on deposit, it can lend 90 million.

What the fuck are you smoking? You're seriously confused on how it works.

If I put 100million into the bank. The bank can use 90million for investments, lending, etc.. and 10mill must be on standby if I want to withdraw some.

If the bank has 10mill on reserve for withdrawal then yes it can lend 90mill but only because someone put in 100mill. If I put in 10mill, then the bank would only have 9mill to use, not 90!

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 03:42 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
It's called Fractional Reserve banking.

Discuss Drinking Beverage

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 08:50 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
(25-04-2013 01:44 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 12:54 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  They can and they do. Typically by a factor of ten. Though they are usually required to hold about ten percent of their assets in cash, they do indeed lend more than they have. Thus, if a bank has 10 million on deposit, it can lend 90 million.

What the fuck are you smoking? You're seriously confused on how it works.

If I put 100million into the bank. The bank can use 90million for investments, lending, etc.. and 10mill must be on standby if I want to withdraw some.

If the bank has 10mill on reserve for withdrawal then yes it can lend 90mill but only because someone put in 100mill. If I put in 10mill, then the bank would only have 9mill to use, not 90!

That's true in a world where we're only dealing in pure liquidity. But we aren't in that world. Reserve ratio requirements typically mandate that a bank hold 10% of its assets in specie, not 10% of its demand deposits. Thus, when a bank has 100 units of cash on demand deposit, it can lend 900 units of money because once that 900 unit loan is made, two entries are made on the bank's balance sheet. One for 900 in the asset column and one for 900 in the liability column. This satisfies the 10% reserve ratio because the bank shows 1000 units of assets and still retains 100 units of specie.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Somebody prove this wrong please.
I asked people to prove it wrong muffs. You seem to think that if you put £10 in a bank then they lend £9 out (minus the reserve) from that £10 you deposit and that is simply not the case.

They create money (from nothing) based upon your signature that you will pay them back, which is why I said we live in a debt based economy I wouldnt at all be wrong. That if all debts were to be paid off then there simply would be nothing left of the economy on the balance sheets (yes the 3% of fiat currency would exist but that would be it)

Have you actually looked at the article or watched any of the videos muffs? If so can you please specifically pick out what is wrong with the information like I have asked because on my own studies I find this to be the case, that the information isn't wrong at all.

The reserves/fractional banking is a joke. Thinking about it if all banks went belly up how would 10% cover what was once worth trillions? It wouldn't would it.

Interest free lending is not a joke, would anybody care to share where this actual "interest" exists within the system without creating more debt to pay it off (with interest) which means more debt to an interest ratio.

So the selected institutes who create money (simply from your promise to pay it back) charge you interest (that doesnt actually exist within the system) so you have to work hard and contribute to the dynamic system that is the economy and pay them extra on top!!! How the fuck is that fair???

The banks were "Too big to fail" yet they needed bailing out by government institutes, yes I understand what would happen if these banks went belly up then trillions of pounds would just "dissappear" but the banks/system DID FAIL and it has happened time after time on a cyclical basis throughout history. The system is UNFAIR and at the end of the day it only really favours the people at the top.

Of course if we had "interest free" lending then these selected institutes wouldnt be able to make profits. Maybe then they could actually do something of actual material purpose. I dont see any reason of instead of paying trillions to banks so they can hoard it (as borrowing is down) that our governments simply don't use that money to lend out interest free. They wont though because like I said our economies only grow through debt.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: