Is Our Debt Exceeding Our Wealth?

[brainstorm]

It happens all of the time in R&D labs. The company funds the research, the inventors are secure in their jobs, and the investors reap the profits - I get it.

It could also happen without corporate organization/control. An individual could come up with an idea and some level of planning for further development. They could then approach an engineer with the means to implement it, etc. with everyone involved contributing their own labor in exchange for a share of the final product(s), which they could then sell, trade, or give directly. This seems practically unimaginable because financialism and corporatism are so central in the current economic imagination.

 

[WhoWee]

It could also happen without corporate organization/control. An individual could come up with an idea and some level of planning for further development. They could then approach an engineer with the means to implement it, etc. with everyone involved contributing their own labor in exchange for a share of the final product(s), which they could then sell, trade, or give directly. This seems practically unimaginable because financialism and corporatism are so central in the current economic imagination.

Once the engineer becomes involved - isn't funding still required from somewhere?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I do realize what you are saying brainstorm in post three and other posts. And it's not you in particular that I am speaking of when I am saying that "nowhere has anyone made a a case that debt is bad". You did in post three but not until post 22 did you really spell it out. What I am really looking for is the majority to come to a conclusion on whether or not the current banking system and it's laws are good. You all know what I think at this point I would imagine. In order to even begin a conversation on anything else, banking and fractional reserve banking in particular really has to be the topic. How can anyone make any ground in any other subject if this problem isn't taken care of. Everyone needs to understand the problems associated with fractional reserve banking and I think now is a good time considering the state of the economy, worldwide. How do we fight hunger, improve education, improve anything at all without first addressing this problem? And it has to be talked about excluding all other factors of economic health. When we start bringing the price of oil for example into a conversation about banking it confuses the whole argument. We need ideas on a new system, one that will work and continue to work for generations instead of the one we have now which does not work.

 

[WhoWee]

I do realize what you are saying brainstorm in post three and other posts. And it's not you in particular that I am speaking of when I am saying that "nowhere has anyone made a a case that debt is bad". You did in post three but not until post 22 did you really spell it out. What I am really looking for is the majority to come to a conclusion on whether or not the current banking system and it's laws are good. You all know what I think at this point I would imagine. In order to even begin a conversation on anything else, banking and fractional reserve banking in particular really has to be the topic. How can anyone make any ground in any other subject if this problem isn't taken care of. Everyone needs to understand the problems associated with fractional reserve banking and I think now is a good time considering the state of the economy, worldwide. How do we fight hunger, improve education, improve anything at all without first addressing this problem? And it has to be talked about excluding all other factors of economic health. When we start bringing the price of oil for example into a conversation about banking it confuses the whole argument. We need ideas on a new system, one that will work and continue to work for generations instead of the one we have now which does not work.

I'm using a phone and can't prepare a long post with links right now. However, I'd like to suggest you read some of the news reports surrounding the implementation of the Euro.

 

[brainstorm]

Once the engineer becomes involved - isn't funding still required from somewhere?

Funding is required for any input into a process where the provider is not willing to invest in the final product with a non-monetary contribution. I.e. money is never "required" except to the extent that people lack faith in investing in the process they're being paid to contribute to.

I do realize what you are saying brainstorm in post three and other posts. And it's not you in particular that I am speaking of when I am saying that "nowhere has anyone made a a case that debt is bad". You did in post three but not until post 22 did you really spell it out. What I am really looking for is the majority to come to a conclusion on whether or not the current banking system and it's laws are good. You all know what I think at this point I would imagine. In order to even begin a conversation on anything else, banking and fractional reserve banking in particular really has to be the topic. How can anyone make any ground in any other subject if this problem isn't taken care of. Everyone needs to understand the problems associated with fractional reserve banking and I think now is a good time considering the state of the economy, worldwide. How do we fight hunger, improve education, improve anything at all without first addressing this problem? And it has to be talked about excluding all other factors of economic health. When we start bringing the price of oil for example into a conversation about banking it confuses the whole argument. We need ideas on a new system, one that will work and continue to work for generations instead of the one we have now which does not work.

What you should understand about debt is that as bad as it is, and as bad as the economy is that it creates, there are reasons why it is a fundamental aspect of economics. To understand this, you need to look at how slavery originated and why Moses regulated slavery in the book of Exodus instead of forbidding it outright. Slavery (and debt) occur when people submit to domination because they, for whatever reason, have lost faith in their own ability to provide for themselves. This could be their own doing or they could be the victim of war or other circumstance, or a combination of causes. The point is what do you do with people, or rather what do you allow them to do, when they have run out of means to provide for themselves?

To use a more concrete example, imagine you find someone poor and destitute and give them a parcel of land and the tools to farm it, so that they can self-sustain. Now, imagine that instead of using it to self-sustain, they sell it and live for a few years on the money and then they're poor and destitute again. At that point, do you keep providing them new land and means to self-sustain or do you put them to work for money? Ideally, people would work toward a point of self-sustainability but until they do, debt is a form of moral hazard for running out of property.

The problem with it is that it generates labor-obligations, and creates an economy of obliged labor where consumers get accustomed to people performing labor and services for them. Then, if all the debtors paid off their debt, they might not want to perform labor and services for others than themselves, and relatively inept people would be abandoned. In a way, this would be good for them because they would have to learn skills and self-sustain, but currently they feel no obligation or interest to do so, so they like having a credit-driven economy that generates lots of obliged labor for them to consume in the form of services and goods.

 

[WhoWee]

What you should understand about debt is that as bad as it is, and as bad as the economy is that it creates, there are reasons why it is a fundamental aspect of economics. To understand this, you need to look at how slavery originated and why Moses regulated slavery in the book of Exodus instead of forbidding it outright. Slavery (and debt) occur when people submit to domination because they, for whatever reason, have lost faith in their own ability to provide for themselves. This could be their own doing or they could be the victim of war or other circumstance, or a combination of causes. The point is what do you do with people, or rather what do you allow them to do, when they have run out of means to provide for themselves?

To use a more concrete example, imagine you find someone poor and destitute and give them a parcel of land and the tools to farm it, so that they can self-sustain. Now, imagine that instead of using it to self-sustain, they sell it and live for a few years on the money and then they're poor and destitute again. At that point, do you keep providing them new land and means to self-sustain or do you put them to work for money? Ideally, people would work toward a point of self-sustainability but until they do, debt is a form of moral hazard for running out of property.

The problem with it is that it generates labor-obligations, and creates an economy of obliged labor where consumers get accustomed to people performing labor and services for them. Then, if all the debtors paid off their debt, they might not want to perform labor and services for others than themselves, and relatively inept people would be abandoned. In a way, this would be good for them because they would have to learn skills and self-sustain, but currently they feel no obligation or interest to do so, so they like having a credit-driven economy that generates lots of obliged labor for them to consume in the form of services and goods.

In the US, aren't we enslaving taxpayers with the cost of entitlement programs?

 

[brainstorm]

In the US, aren't we enslaving taxpayers with the cost of entitlement programs?

It depends on the net effect of the taxation, along with other factors. For someone who enjoys what they do and make plenty of money doing it, taxation does not really turn them into slaves of their business. However, for someone who NEEDS to do work they don't like or value just to pay tax bills or any other bills, that is more like enslavement.

The easiest way to measure to what degree someone is enslaved by a certain practice is to imagine how they would live as a completely free independent homesteader with a self-sustaining diversity of economic activities. Then, think of all the possible different ways to manipulate them into performing labor for others besides themselves. You could tax them and threaten to take away their property if they don't pay the taxes, which could cause them to have to focus on producing more of something that other people want to buy from them and less on things they would rather do. You could also offer them tools to make their work easier, but by doing make them dependent on things like parts and fuel that they can't harvest from their own land somehow. So there are lots of ways to basically trick someone into needing to work for others in ways that they don't necessarily agree with or want to do.

Of course, this isn't absolute slavery in the sense that people were generally regarded as the possession of a slave-owner and systematically abridged of any and all rights, etc. But, imo, too much of the freedom/slavery discourse has focussed on insisting that everything that's not 100% slavery is 100% free, which just isn't the case. So taxes can and do contribute to enslaving people to work they wouldn't otherwise do, but then so does allowing people to keep and spend all their income since that helps them control the economy in a way that limits others to jobs that service consumer spending. Since those people have to pay taxes and don't have the means to be independent farmers, they end up enslaved to the consumer economy.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I read post 40 a couple times and I am just not sure how debt relates to what you are saying. I get that some people need a little encouragement every now and again. But I don't see how that compares to debt. Are you saying that we need debt like we need a whip at our backs? That having debt is having incentive? Or that having a country ridden with debt is incentive to keep working to pay off debt. I am not quite getting that, maybe I am misunderstanding you.

In the US, aren't we enslaving taxpayers with the cost of entitlement programs?

I would't call this enslavement, I wouldn't call any tax in a FAIR and JUST system enslavement. But when you are paying for bailouts... that is enslavement. Entitlement progarams are necessary. Some people just can't help themselves and imo it is totally wrong to ignore these people and let them fend for themselves. I feel like these programs are used as a scapegoat to what is really draining our society and that is the banking system. I am sure that these programs could use a MAJOR overhaul, they need to be more efficient, they need way more oversight to make sure that the taxpayer's money gets to the right people.

I really wish we could stay on the topic of banking as there is a whole lot of misconceptions and confusion about something that is so important to everyone. There should be some agreement on the FACTS. There is an equation to this system that proves whether or not it works, we need to work on that to provide proof one way or another so we can move on to something that does work. Then and only then can we fix all the other problems. If there is something obviously draining our society we need to get rid of it. Then worry about entitlement programs and taxes. The numbers to me are meaningless if the value of a dollar can plummet to 0 any day. That is a little scary and if you are a history buff at all you know that this has happened many times over and it can happen again, I think it will happen again and fairly soon if nothing changes. Except now the consequences are a lot more serious.

 

[brainstorm]

I read post 40 a couple times and I am just not sure how debt relates to what you are saying. I get that some people need a little encouragement every now and again. But I don't see how that compares to debt. Are you saying that we need debt like we need a whip at our backs? That having debt is having incentive? Or that having a country ridden with debt is incentive to keep working to pay off debt. I am not quite getting that, maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I'm not saying that "we" need anything. I'm explaining that debt has evolved as a form of punishment that extracts productive labor from the prisoner. Collective debt is an absurd concept. It's like lending money to a cotton-plantation and saying that the plantation owners and managers can pay off the debt without driving the slaves even harder. Of course, in a situation where a manager has $500k of debt to pay off and an employee has only $50k, the employee could pay off their debt, go free, and leave the manager in search of other employees.

The details can get complicated. My general point in post #40 is that slavery through debt or otherwise is the result of submission on the part of people who have been denied their freedom through economic loss and, as a result, has to be allowed and regulated to ensure the ethical treatment of the "debt-slaves" the way Moses suggested in the book of Exodus (not quoting the bible to be religious here, just a citation of slaving-ethics).

You simply can't eradicate debt and the corresponding enslavement of people without those people becoming self-sustaining. A dependent person always needs to enslave others, if necessary and possible, to sustain their livelihood. When they are no longer successful in enslaving others, they must offer their own labor in exchange for sustenance because they cannot sustain themselves. They are caught in a trap of interdependency and economic need generates economic domination and submission. When I need food and can't produce it for myself, I will either dominate you to get yours or submit to your will so that you will feed me. That's the simplest way to explain it.

I really wish we could stay on the topic of banking as there is a whole lot of misconceptions and confusion about something that is so important to everyone. There should be some agreement on the FACTS. There is an equation to this system that proves whether or not it works, we need to work on that to provide proof one way or another so we can move on to something that does work. Then and only then can we fix all the other problems. If there is something obviously draining our society we need to get rid of it. Then worry about entitlement programs and taxes. The numbers to me are meaningless if the value of a dollar can plummet to 0 any day. That is a little scary and if you are a history buff at all you know that this has happened many times over and it can happen again, I think it will happen again and fairly soon if nothing changes. Except now the consequences are a lot more serious.

When you talk about measuring a system by "whether or not it works," that could just as well support enslavement via debt or otherwise. Debt "works" to obligate people to productive labor that can sustain an economy as long as people submit to whatever conditions they are given to repay their debts. The question is whether so much irrationality and complexity can evolve from such an economy that it becomes uncontrollable in any kind of direct sense. At that point you have to decide whether you want to blindly support the economy by contributing labor, money, or whatever else in any way possible, or whether you want to choose labor and processes that you consider most valuable to produce for human consumption.

 

[brainstorm]

duplicate post.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

When you talk about measuring a system by "whether or not it works," that could just as well support enslavement via debt or otherwise. Debt "works" to obligate people to productive labor that can sustain an economy as long as people submit to whatever conditions they are given to repay their debts. The question is whether so much irrationality and complexity can evolve from such an economy that it becomes uncontrollable in any kind of direct sense. At that point you have to decide whether you want to blindly support the economy by contributing labor, money, or whatever else in any way possible, or whether you want to choose labor and processes that you consider most valuable to produce for human consumption.

Well, come on you know what I mean when I say, "find a system that works". One that is fair for everyone. One that is by design stable and will remain that way forever. I think the best way to go about it is to let money find it's own value. It is the only way it will ever work. Trying to control it has never worked in all of history. NEVER. Business on the other hand I think should be regulated, including banks, no fractional reserve banking. Monopoly laws are not enough, no way, not even close. The amount of damage that gigantic corporations have done to the planet and it's people is tremendous. The direction in which the human race progresses cannot be dictated my profits alone.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, come on you know what I mean when I say, "find a system that works". One that is fair for everyone. One that is by design stable and will remain that way forever. I think the best way to go about it is to let money find it's own value. It is the only way it will ever work. Trying to control it has never worked in all of history. NEVER. Business on the other hand I think should be regulated, including banks, no fractional reserve banking. Monopoly laws are not enough, no way, not even close. The amount of damage that gigantic corporations have done to the planet and it's people is tremendous. The direction in which the human race progresses cannot be dictated my profits alone.

What part of the "system" do you want to replace - what would you keep?

 

[brainstorm]

Well, come on you know what I mean when I say, "find a system that works". One that is fair for everyone. One that is by design stable and will remain that way forever. I think the best way to go about it is to let money find it's own value. It is the only way it will ever work. Trying to control it has never worked in all of history. NEVER. Business on the other hand I think should be regulated, including banks, no fractional reserve banking. Monopoly laws are not enough, no way, not even close. The amount of damage that gigantic corporations have done to the planet and it's people is tremendous. The direction in which the human race progresses cannot be dictated my profits alone.

You think this is something caused by "a system" or by progress or regress of "the human race?" What about the choices individuals make in whether to take on debt, and how they seduce each other into accepting debt as a means of making money flow? What "system" or "human progress" would automatically prevent individuals from thinking up ways to live extravagantly off of profit and financial investment? How would it prevent others from looking at the extravagant lifestyles of others and thinking, "I want that," without ever questioning what the ultimate consequences of such lifestyles are economically and socially?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

You think this is something caused by "a system" or by progress or regress of "the human race?" What about the choices individuals make in whether to take on debt, and how they seduce each other into accepting debt as a means of making money flow? What "system" or "human progress" would automatically prevent individuals from thinking up ways to live extravagantly off of profit and financial investment? How would it prevent others from looking at the extravagant lifestyles of others and thinking, "I want that," without ever questioning what the ultimate consequences of such lifestyles are economically and socially?

Most people aren't imaginative enough to think that there is another way. The fight for the humanity is one between intellectuals. I believe that the current banking system has been created over a long time and by individuals that put their own greed above their consideration for others. This system is a result of very powerful forces, intelligent people with the drive to succeed over the rest of humanity. Not a conspiracy, but flaws of humanity. It is up to other equally intelligent people who value the success and happiness of future generations to combat these crimes against the population as a whole an not to give into such seduction. But this isn't supposed to be about philosophy. I was hoping there would be more numbers flying around here. Maybe constructive ideas. I like Whowee's question:

What part of the "system" do you want to replace - what would you keep?

How to fix the problem without crippling the world? Hmmm.. I am not saying it's an easy question. It would be my guess though if our money problems aren't fixed then there may be one more 'boom' ahead of us followed by possibly the bust to end all busts. We have had to throw a lot of money on the lastest problem which should lead to devasting inflation eventually. Anyways maybe I should make a thread asking to create a hypothetical monetary utopia. That would probably be better than beating around the bush as I have. I was curious to see what most people think about our current system. I think it's probably beyond repair in my opinion. So I believe it will be necessary to start networks of trade in communities and online as well and in doing so create a new currency. Maybe precious metals of some sort. If an entire self sufficient town started to use another form of currency maybe silver and then another and another the dollar would fade out. And then one day maybe we could create a new dollar backed by something real as it used to be. Now I realize that it is kind of out there and there could be a lot of problems with that but just throwing that out there, got any ideas?

 

[russ_watters]

...got any ideas?

I'm still not even sure what you think the problems are! I'm not seeing anything beyond vague allusions.

We need ideas on a new system, one that will work and continue to work for generations instead of the one we have now which does not work.

"The current system" certainly isn't perfect, but it is partly responsible for the spectacular and completely unprecedented improvments in the human condition over the past 100 years or so. Without knowing what you think the problems are, I'd still be inclined to say that we shouldn't consider scrapping the system we have now, only tweaking it to fix its minor problems.

 

[WhoWee]

I like Whowee's question: How to fix the problem without crippling the world? Hmmm.. I am not saying it's an easy question. It would be my guess though if our money problems aren't fixed then there may be one more 'boom' ahead of us followed by possibly the bust to end all busts. We have had to throw a lot of money on the lastest problem which should lead to devasting inflation eventually. Anyways maybe I should make a thread asking to create a hypothetical monetary utopia. That would probably be better than beating around the bush as I have. I was curious to see what most people think about our current system. I think it's probably beyond repair in my opinion. So I believe it will be necessary to start networks of trade in communities and online as well and in doing so create a new currency. Maybe precious metals of some sort. If an entire self sufficient town started to use another form of currency maybe silver and then another and another the dollar would fade out. And then one day maybe we could create a new dollar backed by something real as it used to be. Now I realize that it is kind of out there and there could be a lot of problems with that but just throwing that out there, got any ideas?

I appreciate the truthfulness of your answer. Trying to nudge our "system" in one direction or another often creates uninteded consequences. As you noted, ou banking system has developed over a very long period of time and has evolved into it's present form - good or bad - it is tested and familiar.

 

[brainstorm]

Most people aren't imaginative enough to think that there is another way. The fight for the humanity is one between intellectuals. I believe that the current banking system has been created over a long time and by individuals that put their own greed above their consideration for others. This system is a result of very powerful forces, intelligent people with the drive to succeed over the rest of humanity.

This is not really the case. The "system" you speak of is just the millennia-old practice of allowing people to borrow money or otherwise take on debt when they want something they don't otherwise have access to. What may be new, or at least more advanced, are institutions and ideological spins that make it seem more normal and less consequential to sign your life away for some immediate gratification. When you say that "most people aren't imaginative enough to think that there is another way," that doesn't cut it for me. That is equating ignorance with innocence, when many people are actively searching for someone who will tell them exactly what they want to hear, which is that there is plenty of easy money available if you just "go with the flow" and take it. It's like saying that people who get seduced into drug-addiction didn't have the opportunity to realize that there was something fishy when the dealer told them it would make them feel great and cause their lives to be wonderful.

Surely everyone has heard that drugs end up costing you more than what you pay for them, and debt is the same. Everyone has had someone tell them to be cautious about taking on debt and to live within their means but they thought that that person was just a wet-blanket afraid to go with the flow and take risks. No one seems to think that if a majority of people are doing something, that it could possibly have negative consequences for all of them. Well, that's the whole point of debt - get people hooked on money so that they will always do whatever money tells them to. Once they are "saddled," the trick is to drive them in a way that maximizes profit without provoking them to seek freedom. As nasty as it sounds, the profit that it creates and the corresponding lifestyle is exactly what people are after when they take on the debt in the first place.

Not a conspiracy, but flaws of humanity. It is up to other equally intelligent people who value the success and happiness of future generations to combat these crimes against the population as a whole an not to give into such seduction.

No it is not a flaw of humanity, at least not in any inevitable sense. And there are no "crimes" against any "population as a whole." Hiding among the masses is exactly what got people into these problems to begin with.

How to fix the problem without crippling the world?

It depends what you mean by "crippling." When consumerism has driven people to the point of equating loss of comfort and status with "crippling," it's not possible. If "crippling" means that there won't be enough food, shelter, clothing, and other basic necessities to go around, this will only happen as long as people choose to subject each other to deprivation as a means of motivating them to generate sufficient profit for other people to pay off their debts.

Hmmm.. I am not saying it's an easy question. It would be my guess though if our money problems aren't fixed then there may be one more 'boom' ahead of us followed by possibly the bust to end all busts.

That's what every bust is; but as soon as the survivors recover, they start to search for another boom to multiply their money and make a quick profit instead of investing in long-term stability (and I'm not just talking about investing money).

We have had to throw a lot of money on the lastest problem which should lead to devasting inflation eventually. Anyways maybe I should make a thread asking to create a hypothetical monetary utopia. That would probably be better than beating around the bush as I have. I was curious to see what most people think about our current system. I think it's probably beyond repair in my opinion. So I believe it will be necessary to start networks of trade in communities and online as well and in doing so create a new currency. Maybe precious metals of some sort. If an entire self sufficient town started to use another form of currency maybe silver and then another and another the dollar would fade out. And then one day maybe we could create a new dollar backed by something real as it used to be. Now I realize that it is kind of out there and there could be a lot of problems with that but just throwing that out there, got any ideas?

You can offer to pay people in metals but you will probably want to get at least the market value of your metal and not less, which would be the same as selling them for dollars and then spending the dollars. The point is that this is not a system-problem. It is a production-consumption-distribution problem. It has to do with what people spend their energy and resources on and what the real value of the products is. Yes, people are making profits by generating services and consumption-marketing schemes that get people spending their money. But what is the net result of this economic activity in terms of the ability to cut costs and still be happy? People are hyped up on so many little consumption perks and status-issues that losing access to them feels like they're being crippled. It's going to be an interesting next couple of years because there will be a political battle with both sides trying to sell people on the idea that they can cut their budgets without reducing their materialism and money-expectations, so maybe you should put that on your list of conspiracy theories. It is the great conspiracy to tell people what they want to hear even when it ends up costing them in the long run.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Ok just to be totally clear: The problem is fractional reserve banking. And a government that will bail out these banks. Banks in this system will loan out money with no fear as they will get their money back from the government(us) if they default. Fractional reserve banking creates a never ending cycle of inflation and debt. That is the problem. Fractional reserve banking is no different from counterfeiting. It is the creation of money out of nothing. The first one to use this newly created money has the purchasing power of the now and when the money circulates after it's use the value of all money drops. It is a tax. It is like taking from all the penny jars in the country over and over again. No one seems to notice because everyone wants this easy credit and they don't know any better. And how would they? How many times have you heard someone talk about this stuff on TV? Did you learn about how it works in school? No, and that is because the people with the power don't want to lose their power. It is a flaw of humanity. It is greed. It is envy. We have laws to protect the population from these flaws. Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime. That's why the laws need to be changed. It is the law that protects us from ourselves. No one wanted to see bankers receive HUGE bonuses after the taxpayer bailout, yet it happened because what they did was legal. The only thing that will save us in a recession is MORE money it will go on until the system inevitably crashes. It has been going on since the great depression. Just look at the history and you will see what I am talking about. It is really not that complicated it is actually quite obvious. Thing is it is not common knowledge in the mainstream in the mainstream this kind of thinking is met with troubled faces and glazed over expressions and deaf ears. Most people don't like to hear bad news. Most people are too naive to think that this is the truth. Most people don't have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours reading about banking or history. The subject of banking and economics is made complicated to further confuse those that would like to learn. When you get home from work after a long day, come home to your wife and kids,are you going to start reading about how a fractional reserve banking system will one day crumble leaving you helpless to survive? Or will you just pretend that everything is going to be okay and pop on sportscenter? It is not rocket science it is human nature.

People are hyped up on so many little consumption perks and status-issues that losing access to them feels like they're being crippled. It's going to be an interesting next couple of years because there will be a political battle with both sides trying to sell people on the idea that they can cut their budgets without reducing their materialism and money-expectations, so maybe you should put that on your list of conspiracy theories. It is the great conspiracy to tell people what they want to hear even when it ends up costing them in the long run.

I agree and that is one of the major problems. My list of conspiracy theories? Could you explain that please?

That's what every bust is; but as soon as the survivors recover, they start to search for another boom to multiply their money and make a quick profit instead of investing in long-term stability (and I'm not just talking about investing money).

How do you suppose we would recover if the value of a dollar dropped to 5 cents. Who is going to sell you food or water for something that has no value? What money are you multiplying? What quick profit? Quick profits are only allowed by law, that is what I am talking about changing. Anyways the ability to make quick profits would cease to exist because there is no more money. I would be worrying about where I am going to get food just like everyone else.

"The current system" certainly isn't perfect, but it is partly responsible for the spectacular and completely unprecedented improvments in the human condition over the past 100 years or so. Without knowing what you think the problems are, I'd still be inclined to say that we shouldn't consider scrapping the system we have now, only tweaking it to fix its minor problems.

I have thought of that, it is absolutely true, but, what good are these acheivements if the system responsible will untimately destroy everything that was created by it. The point is the growth isn't real.

As you noted, our banking system has developed over a very long period of time and has evolved into it's present form - good or bad - it is tested and familiar.

Exactly that is the problem, try to convince someone of this and its a 'conspiracy theory'
as soon as contradicting information is seen as a 'conspiracy theory' it loses all credibility, even if it is not a theory but factual information.

You can offer to pay people in metals but you will probably want to get at least the market value of your metal and not less, which would be the same as selling them for dollars and then spending the dollars. The point is that this is not a system-problem. It is a production-consumption-distribution problem. It has to do with what people spend their energy and resources on and what the real value of the products is. even when it ends up costing them in the long run.

I didn't put a ton of thought into that scenario but atleast there would be something of real value in that community. And if the dollar falls to a couple cents their silver would be worth 100,000 dollars(or whatever it works out to be) an ounce. The point of that really is that they would be self sufficient, so whatever happens to the unstable currency it would have no effect on there way of life or chances of survival. Thats what I think is really necessary. Self sustaining communities not dependant on a huge and aging infrascruture or a broken banking system. A new system has to grow from the inside out. The current system is too big to change, and the mainstream view is just too stubborn. Impossible to change in my eyes. If changed from the inside out, and the growth of real wealth possible, the old system would become useless and fade out over time. I just want everyone to be insulated from financial meltdown and from dependence on energy companies. Amish people wouldn't even know what happened! Not that we have to all become amish! I think you know what I mean.

If you think that I am painting an unrealistically bleak future if nothing is changed than please tell me where I am going wrong.
I have always liked this:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

 

[WhoWee]

Ok just to be totally clear: The problem is fractional reserve banking. And a government that will bail out these banks. Banks in this system will loan out money with no fear as they will get their money back from the government(us) if they default. Fractional reserve banking creates a never ending cycle of inflation and debt. That is the problem. Fractional reserve banking is no different from counterfeiting. It is the creation of money out of nothing. The first one to use this newly created money has the purchasing power of the now and when the money circulates after it's use the value of all money drops. It is a tax. It is like taking from all the penny jars in the country over and over again. No one seems to notice because everyone wants this easy credit and they don't know any better. And how would they? How many times have you heard someone talk about this stuff on TV? Did you learn about how it works in school? No, and that is because the people with the power don't want to lose their power. It is a flaw of humanity. It is greed. It is envy. We have laws to protect the population from these flaws. Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime. That's why the laws need to be changed. It is the law that protects us from ourselves. No one wanted to see bankers receive HUGE bonuses after the taxpayer bailout, yet it happened because what they did was legal. The only thing that will save us in a recession is MORE money it will go on until the system inevitably crashes. It has been going on since the great depression. Just look at the history and you will see what I am talking about. It is really not that complicated it is actually quite obvious. Thing is it is not common knowledge in the mainstream in the mainstream this kind of thinking is met with troubled faces and glazed over expressions and deaf ears. Most people don't like to hear bad news. Most people are too naive to think that this is the truth. Most people don't have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours reading about banking or history. The subject of banking and economics is made complicated to further confuse those that would like to learn. When you get home from work after a long day, come home to your wife and kids,are you going to start reading about how a fractional reserve banking system will one day crumble leaving you helpless to survive? Or will you just pretend that everything is going to be okay and pop on sportscenter? It is not rocket science it is human nature.
I agree and that is one of the major problems. My list of conspiracy theories? Could you explain that please?



How do you suppose we would recover if the value of a dollar dropped to 5 cents. Who is going to sell you food or water for something that has no value? What money are you multiplying? What quick profit? Quick profits are only allowed by law, that is what I am talking about changing. Anyways the ability to make quick profits would cease to exist because there is no more money. I would be worrying about where I am going to get food just like everyone else.



I have thought of that, it is absolutely true, but, what good are these acheivements if the system responsible will untimately destroy everything that was created by it. The point is the growth isn't real.



Exactly that is the problem, try to convince someone of this and its a 'conspiracy theory'
as soon as contradicting information is seen as a 'conspiracy theory' it loses all credibility, even if it is not a theory but factual information.



I didn't put a ton of thought into that scenario but atleast there would be something of real value in that community. And if the dollar falls to a couple cents their silver would be worth 100,000 dollars(or whatever it works out to be) an ounce. The point of that really is that they would be self sufficient, so whatever happens to the unstable currency it would have no effect on there way of life or chances of survival. Thats what I think is really necessary. Self sustaining communities not dependant on a huge and aging infrascruture or a broken banking system. A new system has to grow from the inside out. The current system is too big to change, and the mainstream view is just too stubborn. Impossible to change in my eyes. If changed from the inside out, and the growth of real wealth possible, the old system would become useless and fade out over time. I just want everyone to be insulated from financial meltdown and from dependence on energy companies. Amish people wouldn't even know what happened! Not that we have to all become amish! I think you know what I mean.

If you think that I am painting an unrealistically bleak future if nothing is changed than please tell me where I am going wrong.
I have always liked this:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

My bold. Aside from the quote - do you have any support for the rant?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

My bold. Aside from the quote - do you have any support for the rant?

Which parts specifically? If you could break them down into specific quotes a little better I can answer that question.

 

[WhoWee]

Which parts specifically? If you could break them down into specific quotes a little better I can answer that question.

The bolded sections would be a good start.

"Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime. That's why the laws need to be changed. It is the law that protects us from ourselves. No one wanted to see bankers receive HUGE bonuses after the taxpayer bailout, yet it happened because what they did was legal. The only thing that will save us in a recession is MORE money it will go on until the system inevitably crashes. It has been going on since the great depression. Just look at the history and you will see what I am talking about. It is really not that complicated it is actually quite obvious. Thing is it is not common knowledge in the mainstream in the mainstream this kind of thinking is met with troubled faces and glazed over expressions and deaf ears. Most people don't like to hear bad news. Most people are too naive to think that this is the truth. Most people don't have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours reading about banking or history. The subject of banking and economics is made complicated to further confuse those that would like to learn. When you get home from work after a long day, come home to your wife and kids,are you going to start reading about how a fractional reserve banking system will one day crumble leaving you helpless to survive? Or will you just pretend that everything is going to be okay and pop on sportscenter? It is not rocket science it is human nature.
"

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime.That's why the laws need to be changed.

[

What caused this is fractional reserve banking. Is this not theft? Who is accountable?

No one wanted to see bankers receive HUGE bonuses after the taxpayer bailout, yet it happened because what they did was legal.

Do I really have to explain what happened? I will. But do I really have to?

The only thing that will save us in a recession is MORE money it will go on until the system inevitably crashes.

OK,let me ask you something. What brought this country out of the great depression? What has been done to try and bring us out of this recession? MORE MONEY. Just a list of bailouts. I can explain this in greater detail if you'd like and give you more examples of how money is poured on the problem which inturn cause a larger problem down the road.
1970 - Penn Central Railroad
1971 - Lockheed Corporation
1980 - Chrysler Corporation
1984 - Continental Illinois[3]
1991 - Executive Life Insurance Company, by states assessing other insurers
1998 - Long-Term Capital Management, by banks and investment houses, not government (see LTCM page).
2003 - Parmalat
2008 - The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
2008 - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
2008 - The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. bailed out by the federal government and Berkshire Hathaway
2008 - Morgan Stanley bailed out by The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
2008-2009 - American International Group, Inc. multiple times
2008 - Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008[19]
2008 - 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package
2008 - Citigroup Inc.
2008 - General Motors Corporation and Chrysler LLC- though not technically a bailout, a bridge loan was given to the auto manufacturers by the U.S. government, this is referred to by most as a bailout
2009 - Bank of America to help it absorb known losses that were much greater than revealed to shareholders incurred by its buyout of Merrill Lynch
2009 - CIT Group $3 billion by its bondholders in a failed attempt to avoid a bankruptcy. This bailout only delayed the bankruptcy.
Also wanted to add the importance of The New Deal and WW2 in this country moving past the great depression. I can explain that too if you'd like.

Thing is it is not common knowledge in the mainstream in the mainstream this kind of thinking is met with troubled faces and glazed over expressions and deaf ears. Most people don't like to hear bad news. Most people are too naive to think that this is the truth. Most people don't have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours reading about banking or history. The subject of banking and economics is made complicated to further confuse those that would like to learn. When you get home from work after a long day, come home to your wife and kids,are you going to start reading about how a fractional reserve banking system will one day crumble leaving you helpless to survive? Or will you just pretend that everything is going to be okay and pop on sportscenter? It is not rocket science it is human nature.

Now I am not sure what you disagree with here? Would you like me to give examples about reactions to bad news? How about economics being made complicated?(Some things are actually complicated but fractional reserve banking is grade school math).

"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said."
Alan Greenspan

What do you like to do after a long stressful day at work?

If you address a more specific statement or sentence I will explain better.

 

[WhoWee]

View attachment 31576[

What caused this is fractional reserve banking. Is this not theft? Who is accountable?

Do I really have to explain what happened? I will. But do I really have to?

When you say "Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime" and said "What caused this is fractional reserve banking. Is this not theft? Who is accountable?" - I'm not able to follow your logic.

To compare the legal issuance of loans to murder and rape sounds a tad dramatic.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

When you say "Murders, Rapists, and theives go to jail for their crimes, yet bankers are stealing from everyone and they receive no jailtime" and said "What caused this is fractional reserve banking. Is this not theft? Who is accountable?" - I'm not able to follow your logic.

To compare the legal issuance of loans to murder and rape sounds a tad dramatic.

Well originally I wasn't comparing murderers or rapists to bankers I was making a point that those crimes are punished, unlike stealing from generations of American taxpayers. It really doesn't stop with Americans either seeing as this system has been adopted around the world. World Bank? Actually the amount of damage done, I don't really see what makes a murderer any worse, it is theft either way, a murderer steals life and a banker steals money, money gives life. If you can't see the damage done and the potential damage, then we are bound to disagree about how dramatic that statement really is. But was there anything else there that you want me to explain?

 

[WhoWee]

Well originally I wasn't comparing murderers or rapists to bankers I was making a point that those crimes are punished, unlike stealing from generations of American taxpayers. It really doesn't stop with Americans either seeing as this system has been adopted around the world. World Bank? Actually the amount of damage done, I don't really see what makes a murderer any worse, it is theft either way, a murderer steals life and a banker steals money, money gives life. If you can't see the damage done and the potential damage, then we are bound to disagree about how dramatic that statement really is. But was there anything else there that you want me to explain?

Every murder - murders. Every banker does not steal - there is a difference.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Every murder - murders. Every banker does not steal - there is a difference.

Yeah I realize Joe Shmoe the teller at your local bank is not a murdering rapist. Is it not obvious that I am referring to someone who affects policy and not some random guy that works at the bank?

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah I realize Joe Shmoe the teller at your local bank is not a murdering rapist. Is it not obvious that I am referring to someone who affects policy and not some random guy that works at the bank?

You've cast a pretty wide net. If you have a few specific examples of situations where you believe a crime has gone unpunished it might be more productive than generalizing.

 

[brainstorm]

Ok just to be totally clear: The problem is fractional reserve banking. And a government that will bail out these banks. Banks in this system will loan out money with no fear as they will get their money back from the government(us) if they default. Fractional reserve banking creates a never ending cycle of inflation and debt.

First of all, people don't have to put their money in accounts that are used for lending. They can put cash in a safe. Second, how does making money available for borrowing create inflation. You are assuming that as long as money is available, people have to borrow and spend as much of it as possible. This just isn't necessary. People can conserve spending and borrow as little as possible or nothing. If anything is responsible for inflation, it is the belief that spending more to make more is a good idea. This is what causes people to get the maximum loan they qualify for instead of buying a cheap house in a less lucrative area.

I agree and that is one of the major problems. My list of conspiracy theories? Could you explain that please?

Sorry, I guess I was just ranting back because I get irritated hearing that it's a system-problem without any acknowledgment of the various individual choices and cultural submission that comes into play. People don't HAVE to conform to social-economic culture. They do so because they want to "get ahead" "in the rat race." They choose for upward mobility instead of centering themselves on how to create the most stable economic basis for living well without creating risk and stress for themselves and others.

How do you suppose we would recover if the value of a dollar dropped to 5 cents. Who is going to sell you food or water for something that has no value?

You can start or work at a farm for food. You can drill wells for water. If you're good at it, you can sell it to people for as fair a price as you can muster.

What money are you multiplying? What quick profit? Quick profits are only allowed by law, that is what I am talking about changing. Anyways the ability to make quick profits would cease to exist because there is no more money. I would be worrying about where I am going to get food just like everyone else.

I think you're failing to attribute any responsibility to the borrower, and that is one-sided imo.

I have thought of that, it is absolutely true, but, what good are these acheivements if the system responsible will untimately destroy everything that was created by it. The point is the growth isn't real.

Money is an abstract measure of value. GDP and growth are abstract measures derived from a multitude of different sectors and applied in different ways. When houses are constructed, that is real economic growth. When food is produced and distributed, that is growth. When people develop wisdom to live more efficiently, material production services more people per unit output and that is growth. The only thing you're concerned about is money.

Exactly that is the problem, try to convince someone of this and its a 'conspiracy theory' as soon as contradicting information is seen as a 'conspiracy theory' it loses all credibility, even if it is not a theory but factual information.

If people uncritically dismiss something because it's labelled "conspiracy theory," then they're not rigorous critical thinkers in the first place, are they?

I didn't put a ton of thought into that scenario but atleast there would be something of real value in that community. And if the dollar falls to a couple cents their silver would be worth 100,000 dollars(or whatever it works out to be) an ounce.

And do you expect other commodities to hyper-inflate as well? If so, why? Do you think spending is going to soon increase dramatically for some reason? I tend to think that with a shift to republicanism in government, it is more likely that we'll see fiscal conservatism result in some deflation, since that is what occurred when GWBush was president. The problem is that many people don't like that because they don't know how to keep everyone economically afloat when everyone's guarding money.

The point of that really is that they would be self sufficient, so whatever happens to the unstable currency it would have no effect on there way of life or chances of survival. Thats what I think is really necessary. Self sustaining communities not dependant on a huge and aging infrascruture or a broken banking system.

True, the more means of everyday self-sustainment people have, the less they are affected by economic crises BUT that also requires them being independent of debt, taxes, and liens that can result in loss of property.

A new system has to grow from the inside out. The current system is too big to change, and the mainstream view is just too stubborn. Impossible to change in my eyes.

The reasons "it" doesn't change are 1) people have reasons like yours to believe it won't change 2) people see "it" as a unified thing instead of a collection of relatively distinct institutions and 3) people don't see themselves and others as directly constituting these institutions by their actions and acceptance of them. You can change people, but why do you start with the most radical foundations instead of starting by asking how people who want to payoff and/or avoid debt could achieve their goal and what this would involve on the part of various governmental and non-governmental actors?

If changed from the inside out, and the growth of real wealth possible, the old system would become useless and fade out over time.

It has already for some and for others it would continue even if the old institutions were dismantled.

I just want everyone to be insulated from financial meltdown and from dependence on energy companies.

Go into business in solar panels. The problem is that they've been market-positioned (i.e. priced) to the point of themselves being a form of debt that gets paid off over a certain number of years.

Amish people wouldn't even know what happened! Not that we have to all become amish! I think you know what I mean.
If you think that I am painting an unrealistically bleak future if nothing is changed than please tell me where I am going wrong.

Amish economics does seem amazingly independent, from my limited perspective. It would be interesting if someone was trying to adapt some of those economic practices to modern life.

 

[russ_watters]

Locked pending moderation.