Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

The monetary system is clearly holding us back and killing billions of people.

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#81  Postby Nicko » Sep 24, 2013 1:40 pm

Veenet wrote:
Well, you're trying to have a conversation with Veenet. Good luck with that.


lol, an odd comment.

I don't think anyone here is going to come up with a viable alternative to the monetary system, I certainly haven't. But that doesn't change the fact that it so so blatantly clear that the monetary system doesn't work and is holding us back immensely. it is inevitable it will have to change if we want to sustain the human race and the planet we live on. I just hope we can think of an alternative before its to late.


Of course, while we are keeping our options open - just in case anyone comes up with some alternative way of rewarding people for their labour, skills and knowledge whilst apportioning scarce resources in a world where lazy,selfish bastards exist - we could always try to make the current system work a bit better. The power that ordinary citizens wield in modern democracies is far from fully-utilised. Ordinary citizens could be better informed, more engaged. Regulatory safeguards against systemic risk of all kinds could be better. Largely unaccountable concentrations of power can be made more accountable.

If you want to make a better world, a kinder society, there is no shortage of work to be done. We don't have to sit on our hands and wait for a roadmap to Utopia.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8617
Age: 42
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#82  Postby The_Metatron » Sep 24, 2013 2:23 pm

Nicko wrote:
Veenet wrote:
Well, you're trying to have a conversation with Veenet. Good luck with that.

lol, an odd comment.

I don't think anyone here is going to come up with a viable alternative to the monetary system, I certainly haven't. But that doesn't change the fact that it so so blatantly clear that the monetary system doesn't work and is holding us back immensely. it is inevitable it will have to change if we want to sustain the human race and the planet we live on. I just hope we can think of an alternative before its to late.

Of course, while we are keeping our options open - just in case anyone comes up with some alternative way of rewarding people for their labour, skills and knowledge whilst apportioning scarce resources in a world where lazy,selfish bastards exist - we could always try to make the current system work a bit better. The power that ordinary citizens wield in modern democracies is far from fully-utilised. Ordinary citizens could be better informed, more engaged. Regulatory safeguards against systemic risk of all kinds could be better. Largely unaccountable concentrations of power can be made more accountable.

If you want to make a better world, a kinder society, there is no shortage of work to be done. We don't have to sit on our hands and wait for a roadmap to Utopia.

Well, shit. I was waiting from some ruler to do all that for me.

Goddammit.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20373
Age: 55
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#83  Postby Meme » Sep 25, 2013 5:37 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Meme wrote:Use of currency dates back at least 4000 years, and probably further than 15,000 if you count barter currencies based on physical goods. It is used because it works.


Like lots of other things that 'work' (because they haven't failed yet), exchange media are evolved, rather than designed. I'm not dissing your defence of money, but to say something that isn't extinct is still working is a tautology.


Perhaps I should modify my statement to say that money works better than other reasonable alternatives. Money as a conceptual framework has undergone significant modification over human history. That change is still happening, with experiments like online crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin or Zerocoin or peer-to-peer social capital systems, like Ripple.

I don't think they'll be particularly successful, and some even look like scams, but they are interesting experiments. Further evidence of how technology changes the way people can and will interact.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Meme wrote:There are uncountable examples of win-win exchange between parties that increase the wealth, or happiness, or utility, or potential interest of both parties.


That does not respond to the problem of economic advantage. Got any more dogma you want to spout at us? Right on cue:


That was not the point of my statement. Mutual benefit from trade or exchange is plain fact, as well as a fundamental principle of economics. You can label it 'dogma' of you like, but its not held up to be an absolute truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by the problem of economic advantage. Are you referring to imbalances in economic power, or imperfect knowledge on the part of economic actors?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Meme wrote:In an economic system, actors are assumed to primarily act in their own self-interest. Thus the shopkeeper has no interest in setting prices lower if his customers don't know about alternatives. If he's in a monopoly position, then yes, this can be exploited. If he's in a perfectly competitive situation - ie one of perfect knowledge and absolute similarity/exchangeability of goods/services - then by setting prices higher than his competition he loses the sale and gains no utility.


Why are you speculating about perfect conditions? Because God's in his heaven, and all's right with the world? Tell us something we didn't fucking learn on the first day of class. That veenet has not been to the first day of class is beside the point. Economic dogma is not what he needs, which is to learn how to think.

Money isn't used because it works; it's used because it hasn't failed yet.


Why am I delivering a dramatically oversimplified Economics 101 lesson? Because the original poster appears to need it and there was insufficient clarity in his original statements to divine his position in totality. I was trying to get him to engage in conversation, so perhaps he'd be involved enough to learn why his question was so misinformed in the first place or learn enough that he was satisfied.

I'm new here, so I though encouragement was a better option that ridicule.

Saying money is used because it hasn't failed yet implies that the idea of a neutral medium for exchange can fail. Individual currencies can fail, typically from hyperinflation or substitiution, tied to a broader economic failure or runaway monetary policy. In every case that I can think of, the old currency is either replaced by a new one (Hungary, Germany, Brazil, China, Zimbabwe) or revaluation/redenomination (post-Soviet era CIS nations). So when money 'fails', its replaced. By money.

For money to fail, the entire notion of fiat currency would need to have failed as a conceptual framework. The only way I can see that happening is global reversion to the gold standard or global financial collapse. The second might be more likely than the first, despite the wet dreams of some libertarian types and the Austrian School, but in either case we're most royally shafted.
Meme
 
Name: Simon
Posts: 61

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#84  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 25, 2013 6:13 am

Meme wrote:For money to fail, the entire notion of fiat currency would need to have failed as a conceptual framework. The only way I can see that happening is global reversion to the gold standard or global financial collapse. The second might be more likely than the first, despite the wet dreams of some libertarian types and the Austrian School, but in either case we're most royally shafted.


What about energy? Well, not flatly energy, but metered energy. Refining gold requires energy, but beyond that, you can turn lead into gold by the right application of nuclear energy.

We've already seen currencies pegged to petroleum, have we not? But we see that the scarcity of petroleum is not strictly a basis for increasing prices. The transition from support of nuclear energy generation to renewable sources is another interesting tidbit.

We might fool ourselves into thinking of energy in terms of currency, rather than vice versa, but you can see the foolishness in that.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26721
Age: 7
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#85  Postby ADParker » Sep 25, 2013 11:03 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Veenet,
This post contains a personal attack on another forum member.

Be advised that calling a fellow forum member a "Fool",or anything else of a similar derogatory nature, violates the terms of the Forum Users Agreement (specifically section 1.2.c) which you have agreed to abide by in joining this forum.

ADParker

Please do not discuss moderation in this thread. If you have any questions or comments please PM me or any other member of the moderation team.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 46
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#86  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 12:29 am

FIAT FRB money is a double accounting fraud.

Image

The above is an example table showing how an initial £1000 created by a Central bank and then placed in Bank A, cascades down through the banking system being lent out over and over again. This is because the lendings of one bank are allowed to be used as the deposits of other banks. I have emboldened this last sentence because it is the key.

Of course, each time the money enters the next bank in the chain, a bit is shaved off the amount that can subsequently be lent out because some of the debt-based deposit must remain on the deposit side of a given bank's books. The process of re-lending out of the same money only stops when infinity is approached.

So, starting from a baseline figure of 1000 central bank money, we end up with a situation where the total amount of "money" in the system is £4000 (due to banks effectively using the debt side of other banks' balance sheet as the deposit side on their own balance sheet) and that the debt based monetary system must actually grow over the next 5 years by another £600 just to make the books balance at the end of that period. This is because of the compound interest applied to the loans.

The only way the above can be made to work is if the central bank continues to lend money into the system to cover the hole in the balance sheet implied by interest rates on loans. But, of course, the banks are simply going to multiply lend out any new money that comes into the system and so the problem keeps on growing.

All of the above is the reason why governments shit themselves when growth stops because, when that happens, the ponzi-scheme money-supply promptly collapses. However, they can't allow it to collapse and so they keep pushing money into the system regardless. The trouble is, this new money no longer has an economic home to go to (due to halted growth) and so merely has the effect of causing inflationary driven prices rises due to the oversupply of money. This is why recessions often bring inflationary price rises with them instead of deflationary collapses in prices, which is what one might have intuitively expected.

In the above example, the central bank base money supply will need to grow to £1150 in 5 year's time to cover the interest repayments on the loans and this means that there is a built-in requirement that the economy will grow by 3% per year for each of those 5 years to accommodate the extra money flowing into the system. Any growth less than that and you end up either with deflation (if the CB does not create enough base money) or inflation (if the CB does create the money). The only way you avoid either inflation or deflation is if the economy grows by just the right amount. Whatever happens, the economy must perpetually grow in order for this type of FRB-based money-supply to work.

In short, an FRB-based money-supply is always a car-crash waiting to happen and on a finite planet of finite resource you can be guaranteed it will happen (due to the limits to growth implied by those finite resources).

On the ground in the real world, of course, things are more complicated. But the principles outlined above still hold. for example, I have shown with the above schematic how the money must go from bank to bank to wring out all returns. However, the money that is lent out by a given bank on the debt side of its balance sheet, could just as easily receive that money back itself as a deposit. In other words, it the lent out money doesn't have to actually go to another bank. Or, another way to look at it is to say that it doesn't matter if the money does go to another bank because somebody else's money is going to come to this bank.

In addition to all of the above is the influx of money that has originated outside of a given monetary jurisdiction. This only serves to further exacerbate the problem.

To summarise:

1) Central banks create base money for our economy either by buying it in from outside the system via the issuance of government bonds or, if they wish, by directly creating it from scratch with mechanisms such as QE.

2) The banks who take out loans of base money from the CB can then lend out a proportion of it to other banks and/or non-banks customers based on their fractional reserve requirements.

3) Either:

a) Non-bank customers are either going to deposit the money they have borrowed into a bank or are they going to spend the money such that the recipient (or some recipient at some point down the chain of transactions) is going to deposit the money into a bank, thus allowing the recipient banks to declare that loaned money that has been deposited with them on their books as a part of their assets and thus increase their fractional reserve.

or

b) Other banks who have directly borrowed the money from the first bank in the chain are going to be able to declare their loaned money as an asset on their books and thus increase their fractional reserves?

4) In either or both instances of (3), the increased fractional reserves of the banks having received previously loaned money means that they can now lend more money out than was the case prior to their receipt of it.

5) All of the above processes will, unless there is a direct regulatory intervention, continue until all capacity to wring a return out of deposits received (within the fractional reserve requirements) is exhausted. In other words, until infinity is approached.

When all of the liabilities and assets in the chart example I provided are added up, it does not add up to merely the original £1000 due to the interest that has been added to the loans. If, however, we add up the fractional reserves held by all of the banks put together, it is there that we will find the original £1000 issued by the CB, spread out over the entire banking system's deposits held on account in the form of required fractional reserves. On top of that £1,000, though, is another £3,000 that has been lent into existence. Oh, and of course, there is the interest of £600 that is due to be paid back as well (based on 5%). There has actually been £4000 lent out but, given that some of that money in circulation on that table ends back up as fractional reserves held on deposit account, if we subtract the £1000 held in the form of fractional reserves from the total amount of £4000 that has been lent out, this leaves £3000 actually in circulation being used by people as if it was base money which it is not.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#87  Postby Veenet » Sep 26, 2013 12:33 am

Why am I delivering a dramatically oversimplified Economics 101 lesson? Because the original poster appears to need it and there was insufficient clarity in his original statements to divine his position in totality. I was trying to get him to engage in conversation, so perhaps he'd be involved enough to learn why his question was so misinformed in the first place or learn enough that he was satisfied.

I'm new here, so I though encouragement was a better option that ridicule.

Saying money is used because it hasn't failed yet implies that the idea of a neutral medium for exchange can fail. Individual currencies can fail, typically from hyperinflation or substitiution, tied to a broader economic failure or runaway monetary policy. In every case that I can think of, the old currency is either replaced by a new one (Hungary, Germany, Brazil, China, Zimbabwe) or revaluation/redenomination (post-Soviet era CIS nations). So when money 'fails', its replaced. By money.

For money to fail, the entire notion of fiat currency would need to have failed as a conceptual framework. The only way I can see that happening is global reversion to the gold standard or global financial collapse. The second might be more likely than the first, despite the wet dreams of some libertarian types and the Austrian School, but in either case we're most royally shafted.


I must not have noticed you trying to engage in conversation.

Maybe I should have tried to make my original point clearer. I wasn't talking about changing one currency to another. I was talking about a completely new system based on ethics that removes currency altogether. I do not need a lesson in economics to understand the monetary system is unethical and doesn't work. its not just me that thinks this, it is hundreds of people including philosophers and social engineers. In a new system based around ethics and with the aim of helping the human race meet its true potential and move toward a type 1 civilization all your current economic theory's and rules would disappear.
Veenet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: sean kelly
Posts: 40

Country: America
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#88  Postby Veenet » Sep 26, 2013 12:44 am

stevecook172001 highlights a great point and shows one of the main flaws in the current system.

We are living in a backwards thinking society. For example in order for the current system to work, designers need to design products for us with a limited life span, so they break sooner or later. Otherwise we wouldn't continue to buy them and the system would fail. Lol its a joke.

We could have computers, cars, TV's, LIGHT-BULB'S that we don't ever need to replace, however our current system wont allow it. This is backwards thinking because it has a negative effect on us and the environment.

Here is an example of what I mean, a documentary called "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/
Veenet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: sean kelly
Posts: 40

Country: America
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#89  Postby GT2211 » Sep 26, 2013 2:29 am

Jesus this thread is going off the deep in quickly. Banks don't lend out of deposits FFS.
gt2211: Making Ratskep Great Again!
User avatar
GT2211
 
Posts: 3089

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#90  Postby Meme » Sep 26, 2013 6:33 am

stevecook172001 wrote:FIAT FRB money is a double accounting fraud.
[snip]

FRB-based money-supply is always a car-crash waiting to happen and on a finite planet of finite resource you can be guaranteed it will happen


Ahh, this takes me back about 20 years.

Fractional reserve lending/banking isn't a fraud, accounting or otherwise, it’s a fundamental part of the classical banking system. Without it, there are almost no incentives to deposit money, apart from safety, and that’s what a safe deposit box is for. Its only an accident waiting to happen if the central bank is powerless and there's no insurance.

However, there is evidence emerging that the neo-classical model of money creation, of which fractional banking is a big part, isn’t all that correct. Like a lot of things in economics though, its not exactly clear what the real root is, and the emerging exogenous money theories have just as many problems as the classical endogenous money theory.

Even with the unparallel, massive increase in the money supply seen in the last five years, inflation expectations have stabilised at the ~2-3% level seen across most advanced economies.

It sounds bizarre, but its actually quite an interesting time to be an economist. Plenty of theories that we knew were proven, or at least weren’t really bothering arguing about as they had worked really well for four or five decades, have all of a sudden turned out to be not reliable after all. A lot of the standard neo-classical Keynesian and Freidman-style monetarist arguments are being rehashed.

Personally, I think we’ll probably see some re-writing of the economic textbooks over the next 5 to 10 years, sort of a ‘what we learned from the 2007 to 201X great recession’ style of thing. This could be the biggest shift in economic thinking since the 1970s. My education in economics ended in the late 1990s, and its pretty ratty around the edges at the moment. Perhaps I’ll have to go back to university…
Meme
 
Name: Simon
Posts: 61

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#91  Postby Meme » Sep 26, 2013 7:11 am

Veenet wrote:
Maybe I should have tried to make my original point clearer. I wasn't talking about changing one currency to another. I was talking about a completely new system based on ethics that removes currency altogether.


I do not need a lesson in economics to understand the monetary system is unethical and doesn't work. its not just me that thinks this, it is hundreds of people including philosophers and social engineers. [/quote]

I think you require a better grounding in economics, if only so you could more clearly outline what you think the flaws of the monetary system are, apart from its not ethical.

I'll repeat, money in and of itself is ethically neutral. Ethical implications arise in the acquisiton of money, the use of money and the production of money. Yes, the monetary system is open to being co-opted by governments and private institutions, but no other practical system has been introduced that is any less vulnerable, and most are a great deal worse.

What you appear to be upset with is capitalism and social justice within economic relationships, not the monetary system. Wealth creation and thus economic inequality is an inevitable part of all economic systems. Monetary systems are a fundamental part of any society that has evolved away from a purely subsistence base - even lower primates can grasp the concepts.

Veenet wrote: In a new system based around ethics and with the aim of helping the human race meet its true potential and move toward a type 1 civilization all your current economic theory's and rules would disappear.


Economic theories and rules are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are an attempt to better understand the nature of how people and systems interact with each. Yes, if you completely change the economic paradigm, some rules will disappear. But, they'll be replaced with others.

If you're actually interested in the ethics of money and economic systems, I suggest 'The Ethics of Money Production' by Hülsmann, which is written from a Austrian school, consequentialist, Christian, semi-biblical approach. Its available for free download from mises.org. His conclusions seem to pretty much lie alone similar lines to yours:

There is no tenable economic, legal, moral, or spiritual rationale that could be adduced in justification of paper money and fractional-reserve banking. The prevailing ways of money production, relying as they do on a panoply of legal privileges,
are alien elements in the capitalist economy. They provide illicit incomes, encourage irresponsibility and dependence, stimulate the artificial centralization of political and economic decision-making, and constantly create fundamental economic
disequilibria that threaten the life and welfare of millions of people. In short, paper money and fractional-reserve banking go a long way toward accounting for the excesses for which the capitalist economy is widely chided.
We have argued that these monetary institutions have not come into existence out of any economic necessity. They have been created because they allow an alliance of politicians and bankers to enrich themselves at the expense of all other strata of society. This alliance emerged rather spontaneously in the seventeenth century; it developed in multifarious ways up to the present day, and in the course of its development it created the current monetary institutions.
[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Hülsmann, 2008, pp.238-239
Meme
 
Name: Simon
Posts: 61

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#92  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 8:08 am

GT2211 wrote:Jesus this thread is going off the deep in quickly. Banks don't lend out of deposits FFS.

Logically refute the points in my post if you can.
Last edited by stevecook172001 on Sep 26, 2013 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#93  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 26, 2013 8:38 am

Meme wrote:It sounds bizarre, but its actually quite an interesting time to be an economist. Plenty of theories that we knew were proven, or at least weren’t really bothering arguing about as they had worked really well for four or five decades, have all of a sudden turned out to be not reliable after all. A lot of the standard neo-classical Keynesian and Freidman-style monetarist arguments are being rehashed.


That is why economics is no better than theology/philosophy and is just as big a waste of time and money.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 40552
Age: 69
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#94  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 9:10 am

Meme wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:FIAT FRB money is a double accounting fraud.
[snip]

FRB-based money-supply is always a car-crash waiting to happen and on a finite planet of finite resource you can be guaranteed it will happen


Ahh, this takes me back about 20 years.

Fractional reserve lending/banking isn't a fraud, accounting or otherwise, it’s a fundamental part of the classical banking system. Without it, there are almost no incentives to deposit money, apart from safety, and that’s what a safe deposit box is for. Its only an accident waiting to happen if the central bank is powerless and there's no insurance.

However, there is evidence emerging that the neo-classical model of money creation, of which fractional banking is a big part, isn’t all that correct. Like a lot of things in economics though, its not exactly clear what the real root is, and the emerging exogenous money theories have just as many problems as the classical endogenous money theory.

Even with the unparallel, massive increase in the money supply seen in the last five years, inflation expectations have stabilised at the ~2-3% level seen across most advanced economies.

It sounds bizarre, but its actually quite an interesting time to be an economist. Plenty of theories that we knew were proven, or at least weren’t really bothering arguing about as they had worked really well for four or five decades, have all of a sudden turned out to be not reliable after all. A lot of the standard neo-classical Keynesian and Freidman-style monetarist arguments are being rehashed.

Personally, I think we’ll probably see some re-writing of the economic textbooks over the next 5 to 10 years, sort of a ‘what we learned from the 2007 to 201X great recession’ style of thing. This could be the biggest shift in economic thinking since the 1970s. My education in economics ended in the late 1990s, and its pretty ratty around the edges at the moment. Perhaps I’ll have to go back to university…

Simply stating it is not a fraud does not constitute an argument. You have not refuted a single point in my post arguing that it is a double accounting fraud for which I have provided detailed reasons for it being so. If you do not logically refute those reasons, I and anyone else here will properly assume it is because you are unable to.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#95  Postby OlivierK » Sep 26, 2013 10:56 am

In your example, you're taking a whole bunch of transactions that have a balancing credit and debit, throwing away all the debits, and then pointing out that it doesn't balance any more as if that's some giant gotcha. As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8007
Age: 52
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#96  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 11:44 am

OlivierK wrote:In your example, you're taking a whole bunch of transactions that have a balancing credit and debit, throwing away all the debits, and then pointing out that it doesn't balance any more as if that's some giant gotcha. As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.
Vague obfuscatory waffle.

I have laid out the logic of the transactions in comprehensive and itemised form. Refute any specific point, or it is entirely reasonable to assume you either don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately avoiding refuting the points because you can't.

Address the points of argument in terms, if you can.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#97  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 26, 2013 12:44 pm

stevecook172001 wrote:
Address the points of argument in terms, if you can.


Ooh, there it is again!

stevecook172001 wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Jesus this thread is going off the deep in quickly. Banks don't lend out of deposits FFS.

Logically refute the points in my post if you can.


When you make a point (to someone), you'll have someone with whom to argue.

OlivierK wrote:As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.


You've arrived at this point in other threads, Steve:

stevecook172001 wrote:But, it just seems to me that the loss, like the concept on which it was based, are both as meaningless as each other, so I let go of both the concept and the sense of loss of it.


Stick to installing Linux:

stevecook172001 wrote:Ok, I've run full installs of Mint with Mate and/or Gnome 3 and Ubuntu with Mate and/or Gnome 3 and, on balance, Ubuntu 12.04 with Gnome 3 is the most stable, the most out-of-the-box-peripheral-compatable and the most tweakable. I have finally settled on the following setup till something much better comes along:

Ubuntu 12.04 with a significantly modified Gnome 3 desktop that is basically set up to look like a classic MS windows desktop but without the MS bloat. That is to say, one panel on the bottom with the notification applets (clock/sound/network/mail) at the right hand end and with a single menu button at the left end with everything on that one menu including applications, places and system settings. On the desktop I have got a computer and recycle bin icons, a shortcut to my home folder, a folder containing links to my most commonly used internet sites, a folder containing shortcuts to my most commonly used applications and a shared folder for my virtual machines.

It's running rock solid and fast as hell. Which, for me, is important because my machine is far from a new build. It is, in fact, a Pentium-D/3.4GHz/dual-core with 2Gb-RAM. A very slow machine by the latest standards. Though, you'd never guess it from my current setup.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 26721
Age: 7
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#98  Postby OlivierK » Sep 26, 2013 1:20 pm

stevecook172001 wrote:
OlivierK wrote:In your example, you're taking a whole bunch of transactions that have a balancing credit and debit, throwing away all the debits, and then pointing out that it doesn't balance any more as if that's some giant gotcha. As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.
Vague obfuscatory waffle.

I have laid out the logic of the transactions in comprehensive and itemised form. Refute any specific point, or it is entirely reasonable to assume you either don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately avoiding refuting the points because you can't.

I did make a specific point. All of the banks have both a credit transaction and a debit transaction. When you add though the total position of all banks, you get the same $1000 you started with. If you ignore all the debit transactions, which you have done, but which is meaningless to do, then you get a different number. This is not evidence of a conspiracy, it's evidence of ignorance of or incompetence in accountancy.

stevecook172001 wrote:Address the points of argument in terms, if you can.

Construct meaningful sentences, if you can.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8007
Age: 52
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#99  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 2:31 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
Address the points of argument in terms, if you can.


Ooh, there it is again!

stevecook172001 wrote:
GT2211 wrote:Jesus this thread is going off the deep in quickly. Banks don't lend out of deposits FFS.

Logically refute the points in my post if you can.


When you make a point (to someone), you'll have someone with whom to argue.

OlivierK wrote:As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.


You've arrived at this point in other threads, Steve:

stevecook172001 wrote:But, it just seems to me that the loss, like the concept on which it was based, are both as meaningless as each other, so I let go of both the concept and the sense of loss of it.


Stick to installing Linux:

stevecook172001 wrote:Ok, I've run full installs of Mint with Mate and/or Gnome 3 and Ubuntu with Mate and/or Gnome 3 and, on balance, Ubuntu 12.04 with Gnome 3 is the most stable, the most out-of-the-box-peripheral-compatable and the most tweakable. I have finally settled on the following setup till something much better comes along:

Ubuntu 12.04 with a significantly modified Gnome 3 desktop that is basically set up to look like a classic MS windows desktop but without the MS bloat. That is to say, one panel on the bottom with the notification applets (clock/sound/network/mail) at the right hand end and with a single menu button at the left end with everything on that one menu including applications, places and system settings. On the desktop I have got a computer and recycle bin icons, a shortcut to my home folder, a folder containing links to my most commonly used internet sites, a folder containing shortcuts to my most commonly used applications and a shared folder for my virtual machines.

It's running rock solid and fast as hell. Which, for me, is important because my machine is far from a new build. It is, in fact, a Pentium-D/3.4GHz/dual-core with 2Gb-RAM. A very slow machine by the latest standards. Though, you'd never guess it from my current setup.
I'll take that as indicating you are indeed unable to refute the argument that FRB-money is a double-accounting fraud then.

Thanks for that.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Please can we get rid of the monetary system?

#100  Postby stevecook172001 » Sep 26, 2013 2:37 pm

OlivierK wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:
OlivierK wrote:In your example, you're taking a whole bunch of transactions that have a balancing credit and debit, throwing away all the debits, and then pointing out that it doesn't balance any more as if that's some giant gotcha. As far as I can see you're simply parading your ignorance of elementary bookkeeping and/or numeracy.
Vague obfuscatory waffle.

I have laid out the logic of the transactions in comprehensive and itemised form. Refute any specific point, or it is entirely reasonable to assume you either don't know what you are talking about or you are deliberately avoiding refuting the points because you can't.

I did make a specific point. All of the banks have both a credit transaction and a debit transaction. When you add though the total position of all banks, you get the same $1000 you started with. If you ignore all the debit transactions, which you have done, but which is meaningless to do, then you get a different number. This is not evidence of a conspiracy, it's evidence of ignorance of or incompetence in accountancy.

stevecook172001 wrote:Address the points of argument in terms, if you can.

Construct meaningful sentences, if you can.

Add up the total deposits held on account at the banks and you will get £1000, which is the original base money pushed in at the beginning of the process. However, you must also add to that the other £3,00 that has been lent into existence and is circulating in the economy and is being used as if it is base money. This is not a difficult concept, The problem is, that so many people are so utterly conditioned from a very early age to see FRB money as being real and somehow as being base money, that their minds are so repulsed by the truth when they are presented with it, that they cannot bring themselves to see it even if it is staring them in the face.

Read the post again. This time more carefully and then do your sums again.
stevecook172001
 
Name: deleted
Posts: 583

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest