blah
category: general [glöplog]
Iblis: your life is about anti-money!
Quote:
That's something you can only say if you're financially independent. For all us other people, we need find a work or find another way to survive. No money==no home, no food, etc. From that point of view, life is about money.ill rephrase....my life isnt!
anes, you dont know me, you dont know shit about me, so stfu!
Nitro..what is money to you? the papers and air credits on debit and credit cards? yes, im independant because i know how to "make" money, i would never EARN a living under a system of fraudulent money, thats true. But what youre saying is that your life is focused around ganing practically worthless paper and digital IOU's.
Heres a thought for you, if you want to borrow a diskdrive from me, and i give you and "IOU a disk drive", would you be very pleased about that? And willing to pay me interrest on the IOU? thought not.
But apparently your life is focused around getting paper IOU's, so here is my suggestion. if you are so eager to earn paper, come and paint my house and do my laundry, i have barrels full of paper you can have, ill even write IOU on them and some fictional amount, hows that?
Nitro..what is money to you? the papers and air credits on debit and credit cards? yes, im independant because i know how to "make" money, i would never EARN a living under a system of fraudulent money, thats true. But what youre saying is that your life is focused around ganing practically worthless paper and digital IOU's.
Heres a thought for you, if you want to borrow a diskdrive from me, and i give you and "IOU a disk drive", would you be very pleased about that? And willing to pay me interrest on the IOU? thought not.
But apparently your life is focused around getting paper IOU's, so here is my suggestion. if you are so eager to earn paper, come and paint my house and do my laundry, i have barrels full of paper you can have, ill even write IOU on them and some fictional amount, hows that?
I like Maslow's pyramid, which is just an (unverified) theoretical model, but it does describe several topics in life quite well. In this theory, you have to keep all lower level needs fulfilled until you can focus on your higher level needs.
So money is on the 2nd level. As soon as you're done with that, you can move on the higher levels and log on to pouet (friendship), win a compo (respect) or figure out something really novel (creativity)... it just works like that ;)
i like it how "sex" and "excretion" is on the same level.
services and goods are always readily avaible if you have something of equal value, think about it. paper or FIAT money does not have to be part of your equation at al, but most are under the impression that it is. that somehow it is paper money and digital credit that makes the "wheels go around", when nothing is further from the truth.
Ger i subscribe to that aswell to some extend.
Iblis: Money works because we have an agreement that it has a value, and that agreement is so generally accepted that it practically works. I don't disagree that a (theoretical) society could be constructed without the use of money.
But from a very practical point of view: I can't really go to my landlord or to a grocery store and offer my professional services, and expect to keep my flat or get food in return.
Sure, there are thousands of ways I could survive without the use of money, but they're not very practical. If you have a way to live without money that does not require me to go to extreme lengths and doesn't require a political revolution (I.e. a method that works for my everyday life) please tell me.
But from a very practical point of view: I can't really go to my landlord or to a grocery store and offer my professional services, and expect to keep my flat or get food in return.
Sure, there are thousands of ways I could survive without the use of money, but they're not very practical. If you have a way to live without money that does not require me to go to extreme lengths and doesn't require a political revolution (I.e. a method that works for my everyday life) please tell me.
I too belive that a system without money would progress very far as it is a nice way of exchange, but the current system is not one that just helps trade along, it is a dangerous symbiot attached to our political systems.
Money must never be a commodity themself, but only a tool of exchange backed by agreed upon value. Traditionally this has been gold, and rather than going to your vault, get the amount, go the store give them the gold so they can go back to the bank, you use legal tender, the IOU's that will release a certain amount of the value backing.
Gold itself does not have any real value, you cant eat it, plain and simple, but its natural, its uncommon and hard enough to come by that we ast some point agreed it was good for trade. Could be feathers for all i care, but it doesnt change the fact that the system itself is fraudulent.
its called fractional reserve banking, and if you used the same technique they use anywhere else in society you would be put away for fraud. But not in banking, the insitution that we are most dependant on.
finally, no we have never agreed on the value of money, they are dictated as the reserve requirement has been cut down, and down and down to the point where many banks can create 100 times the value they actually represent and charge interrest on it. This varies from country to country, but the system is basically the same all over the world. And i never agreed to this, and my ignorant politicians do not understand why it is dangerous, or perhaps they do and just thread waters and hope for a miracle before its enevitable collapse.
Money must never be a commodity themself, but only a tool of exchange backed by agreed upon value. Traditionally this has been gold, and rather than going to your vault, get the amount, go the store give them the gold so they can go back to the bank, you use legal tender, the IOU's that will release a certain amount of the value backing.
Gold itself does not have any real value, you cant eat it, plain and simple, but its natural, its uncommon and hard enough to come by that we ast some point agreed it was good for trade. Could be feathers for all i care, but it doesnt change the fact that the system itself is fraudulent.
its called fractional reserve banking, and if you used the same technique they use anywhere else in society you would be put away for fraud. But not in banking, the insitution that we are most dependant on.
finally, no we have never agreed on the value of money, they are dictated as the reserve requirement has been cut down, and down and down to the point where many banks can create 100 times the value they actually represent and charge interrest on it. This varies from country to country, but the system is basically the same all over the world. And i never agreed to this, and my ignorant politicians do not understand why it is dangerous, or perhaps they do and just thread waters and hope for a miracle before its enevitable collapse.
posting on the internet - a 2 step plan.
1 - drink
2 - don't post
1 - drink
2 - don't post
or as foreman Mao said it, why change it if it seem to work. right?
Iblis: so what you are saying is that one should collect "work" instead of money? - well to me that could easily lead to some kind of slavery.
You know human nature is that some humans will ALWAYS try to gain power - power can be gained by money, yes - however money can to some degree be controlled - slavery, workforce, favours - can´t
I´m eager to know... you are talking about a lot of dangers and collapse - what is that - and actually, didn´t anes hit it quite well, when saying "anti-money"? - sinnce I think that´s what your last couple of posts have been about.
You know human nature is that some humans will ALWAYS try to gain power - power can be gained by money, yes - however money can to some degree be controlled - slavery, workforce, favours - can´t
I´m eager to know... you are talking about a lot of dangers and collapse - what is that - and actually, didn´t anes hit it quite well, when saying "anti-money"? - sinnce I think that´s what your last couple of posts have been about.
that is in fact what one is doing when he collects "money" atm. colecting work, the idea being that you can exhnage your work for someone elses. But that is not what im talking about.
Fractional reserve banking, look it up and do the math yourself this is not sustainable at all, and all they can do is adjust along the way to lengthen the collapse. I know those who benefit from the system claim otherwise, those who get say.... an 58million dollar christmans bonus.
Im not ant money, im anti fractional reserve banking because it is blatantly dishonest, and if people actually bothered to enlighten themself on the structures that control our (very functional and pleasant) lifes, we would rebel. The example i gave nitro with the diskdrive is excactly what is going on.
Inlfation is real criminals word for stealing, and you have to read up a bit before it will dawn on you what im talking about.
Fractional reserve banking, look it up and do the math yourself this is not sustainable at all, and all they can do is adjust along the way to lengthen the collapse. I know those who benefit from the system claim otherwise, those who get say.... an 58million dollar christmans bonus.
Im not ant money, im anti fractional reserve banking because it is blatantly dishonest, and if people actually bothered to enlighten themself on the structures that control our (very functional and pleasant) lifes, we would rebel. The example i gave nitro with the diskdrive is excactly what is going on.
Inlfation is real criminals word for stealing, and you have to read up a bit before it will dawn on you what im talking about.
You have still not given me the example of what danger you mentioned previously - apparently it´s up to myself to discover this danger, which was neither my question nor my idea by posting - the idea was to hear what danger you think existed.
So you tell me that inflation is another word for stealing?... hmm... who controls inflation? Please don´t tell me that you think that the Banks do?
The national banks can increase inflation, yes, that´s possible, and seen before (ie. Germany during 2nd WW) - however today´s largest threat to the inflation are ourselves, since we in a kind of Lemming-alike actions sometimes always want the same services, goods, whatever...
Inflation would also exist in a system where only "favours" were traded, since the exact abilities of one person (his trade value) could very well become overrepresented, and thus not worth much.
Please don´t tell me what inflation is, and then tell me again what the THREAT is in the current system - and please make it a threat that would not exist in "your" trade/favour-based system.
In short: the problem, I thinnk, are NOT the systems, but ourselves (humans). And some humans will never change - they will always try to gather power, whatever systems they are part of.
So you tell me that inflation is another word for stealing?... hmm... who controls inflation? Please don´t tell me that you think that the Banks do?
The national banks can increase inflation, yes, that´s possible, and seen before (ie. Germany during 2nd WW) - however today´s largest threat to the inflation are ourselves, since we in a kind of Lemming-alike actions sometimes always want the same services, goods, whatever...
Inflation would also exist in a system where only "favours" were traded, since the exact abilities of one person (his trade value) could very well become overrepresented, and thus not worth much.
Please don´t tell me what inflation is, and then tell me again what the THREAT is in the current system - and please make it a threat that would not exist in "your" trade/favour-based system.
In short: the problem, I thinnk, are NOT the systems, but ourselves (humans). And some humans will never change - they will always try to gather power, whatever systems they are part of.
my bottomline is this. governments must issue the fiat as i belive are their main objective, not outsource it as has been done through centuries. this way when you make a loan at a government bank, the usury collected would be
1.controlled by government itself, not something as unstable and unpredictable as "marked forces"
2. be used to finance social benefits, instead of fat bankers holliday homes in the bahamas.
1.controlled by government itself, not something as unstable and unpredictable as "marked forces"
2. be used to finance social benefits, instead of fat bankers holliday homes in the bahamas.
No, you are asking for a simple answer to a complex question. I know wiki has a section for criticism of the system, but even those answers demand a lot more basic knowledge on the subject before you understand the seriousness of each of these concerns.
I quote from the all knowing and infallible wiki:
Business Cycle
Main articles: Austrian School and Business_cycle#Austrian_School
Fractional Reserve Banking allows an increase in the supply of currency available to make loans to purchase investment capital, without increasing the quantity of investment capital or real savings. The quantity of loans will be higher than the actual supply of saved resources available for investment. Investors will assume that the quantity of loans available represents real savings. This misinformation leads investors to misallocate capital, borrowing and investing too much in long-term projects for which there is insufficient demand and real savings. As investors spend borrowed currency, segments of the economy will boom. Later investors will find the prices of their outputs falling and their costs rising, leading to the failure of new projects and a bust.
[edit]
Risk
Main article: Full-reserve banking
Fractional-reserve banking allows for the possibility of a bank run in which the demand depositors and note holders collectively attempt to withdraw more money than the bank has in reserves, causing the bank to default. The bank would then be liquidated and the creditors of the bank would suffer a loss if the proceeds from the bank's assets were insufficient to pay its liabilities. Since liquidation may require selling assets quickly, and potentially in large enough quantities to affect the price of those assets, an otherwise solvent bank (whose assets are worth more than its liabilities) may be made insolvent by a bank run. This problem potentially exists for any corporation with debt or liabilities, but is more critical for banks as they rely upon public deposits (which may be redeemable upon demand).
Although an initial analysis of a bank run and default points to the bank's inability to liquidate or sell assets (i.e. because the fraction of assets not held in the form of liquid reserves are held in less liquid investments such as loans), a more full analysis indicates that depositors will cause a bank run only when they have a genuine fear of loss of capital, and that banks with a strong risk adjusted capital ratio should be able to liquidate assets and obtain other sources of finance to avoid default. For this reason fractional-reserve banks have every reason to maintain their liquidity, even at the cost of selling assets at heavy discounts and obtaining finance at high cost, during a bank run (to avoid a total loss for the contributors of the bank's capital, the shareholders).
Responses to the problem of financial risk described above include:
Opponents of fractional reserve banking who insist that notes and demand deposits be 100% reserved;
Proponents of prudential regulation, such as minimum capital ratios, minimum reserve ratios, central bank or other regulatory supervision, and compulsory note and deposit insurance, (see Controls on Fractional-Reserve Banking below);
Proponents of free banking, who believe that banking should be open to free entry and competition, and that the self-interest of debtors, creditors and shareholders should result in effective risk management; and,
Withdrawal restrictions: some bank accounts may place a limit on daily cash withdrawals and may require a notice period for very large withdrawals. Banking laws in some countries may allow restrictions to be placed on withdrawals under certain circumstances, although these restrictions may rarely, if ever, be used.
[edit]
Incompatible with a gold standard
Main articles: Gold standard, Seigniorage, and Austrian School
Many critics of irredeemable fiat currency see fractional-reserve banking as incompatible with a return of the gold standard, despite the fact that most countries that used a gold standard in the twentieth century had commercial fractional reserve banking. These critics claim that fractional-reserve banking leading to exhaustion of reserves, prompting governments to make the notes of government-favored banks legal tender, even though the issuer is in default. If such defaulted bank notes are made legal tender by government fiat, as they trade at a discount to their face value in terms of gold coin, will be a cheaper way to discharge debts, driving out gold coin. In countries where commercial banks do not issue bank notes, this issue does not exist.
However, other critics of irredeemable fiat currency, from the free banking school, support fractional-reserve banking, and view the threat to the gold standard as originating from central banking and government controls on the formation and winding-up of banks and the business of banking.
[edit]
Inadequate government regulation
Critics of current bank regulations argue that:
Minimum reserve ratios put reserves beyond reach in a time of need
Minimum capital ratios are poor regulators of financial risk, as they ignore other portfolio risk drivers such as scale and diversification and come at a heavy compliance cost
Government bond deposit schemes distort government bond prices, bank portfolios and finance methods, and create inflexibility
100% marginal reserve requirements can be met even if the bank has no reserves
Protecting insolvent banks from their creditors creates moral hazard, and increases the losses bad banks make, and is inequitable, and
Central bank support and government protection of creditors creates moral hazard and socializes credit risk.
These are all concerns about the system, and each of them need further study on your part if you want to understand their real implications here. What did you expect fro me? a 50 page lecture?
All i can do, is tell you that i have spend some good time looking at this, and i think other people should do the same thing as it doesnt add up, and ofcourse it could be that im looking at it in the wrong way.
I quote from the all knowing and infallible wiki:
Business Cycle
Main articles: Austrian School and Business_cycle#Austrian_School
Fractional Reserve Banking allows an increase in the supply of currency available to make loans to purchase investment capital, without increasing the quantity of investment capital or real savings. The quantity of loans will be higher than the actual supply of saved resources available for investment. Investors will assume that the quantity of loans available represents real savings. This misinformation leads investors to misallocate capital, borrowing and investing too much in long-term projects for which there is insufficient demand and real savings. As investors spend borrowed currency, segments of the economy will boom. Later investors will find the prices of their outputs falling and their costs rising, leading to the failure of new projects and a bust.
[edit]
Risk
Main article: Full-reserve banking
Fractional-reserve banking allows for the possibility of a bank run in which the demand depositors and note holders collectively attempt to withdraw more money than the bank has in reserves, causing the bank to default. The bank would then be liquidated and the creditors of the bank would suffer a loss if the proceeds from the bank's assets were insufficient to pay its liabilities. Since liquidation may require selling assets quickly, and potentially in large enough quantities to affect the price of those assets, an otherwise solvent bank (whose assets are worth more than its liabilities) may be made insolvent by a bank run. This problem potentially exists for any corporation with debt or liabilities, but is more critical for banks as they rely upon public deposits (which may be redeemable upon demand).
Although an initial analysis of a bank run and default points to the bank's inability to liquidate or sell assets (i.e. because the fraction of assets not held in the form of liquid reserves are held in less liquid investments such as loans), a more full analysis indicates that depositors will cause a bank run only when they have a genuine fear of loss of capital, and that banks with a strong risk adjusted capital ratio should be able to liquidate assets and obtain other sources of finance to avoid default. For this reason fractional-reserve banks have every reason to maintain their liquidity, even at the cost of selling assets at heavy discounts and obtaining finance at high cost, during a bank run (to avoid a total loss for the contributors of the bank's capital, the shareholders).
Responses to the problem of financial risk described above include:
Opponents of fractional reserve banking who insist that notes and demand deposits be 100% reserved;
Proponents of prudential regulation, such as minimum capital ratios, minimum reserve ratios, central bank or other regulatory supervision, and compulsory note and deposit insurance, (see Controls on Fractional-Reserve Banking below);
Proponents of free banking, who believe that banking should be open to free entry and competition, and that the self-interest of debtors, creditors and shareholders should result in effective risk management; and,
Withdrawal restrictions: some bank accounts may place a limit on daily cash withdrawals and may require a notice period for very large withdrawals. Banking laws in some countries may allow restrictions to be placed on withdrawals under certain circumstances, although these restrictions may rarely, if ever, be used.
[edit]
Incompatible with a gold standard
Main articles: Gold standard, Seigniorage, and Austrian School
Many critics of irredeemable fiat currency see fractional-reserve banking as incompatible with a return of the gold standard, despite the fact that most countries that used a gold standard in the twentieth century had commercial fractional reserve banking. These critics claim that fractional-reserve banking leading to exhaustion of reserves, prompting governments to make the notes of government-favored banks legal tender, even though the issuer is in default. If such defaulted bank notes are made legal tender by government fiat, as they trade at a discount to their face value in terms of gold coin, will be a cheaper way to discharge debts, driving out gold coin. In countries where commercial banks do not issue bank notes, this issue does not exist.
However, other critics of irredeemable fiat currency, from the free banking school, support fractional-reserve banking, and view the threat to the gold standard as originating from central banking and government controls on the formation and winding-up of banks and the business of banking.
[edit]
Inadequate government regulation
Critics of current bank regulations argue that:
Minimum reserve ratios put reserves beyond reach in a time of need
Minimum capital ratios are poor regulators of financial risk, as they ignore other portfolio risk drivers such as scale and diversification and come at a heavy compliance cost
Government bond deposit schemes distort government bond prices, bank portfolios and finance methods, and create inflexibility
100% marginal reserve requirements can be met even if the bank has no reserves
Protecting insolvent banks from their creditors creates moral hazard, and increases the losses bad banks make, and is inequitable, and
Central bank support and government protection of creditors creates moral hazard and socializes credit risk.
These are all concerns about the system, and each of them need further study on your part if you want to understand their real implications here. What did you expect fro me? a 50 page lecture?
All i can do, is tell you that i have spend some good time looking at this, and i think other people should do the same thing as it doesnt add up, and ofcourse it could be that im looking at it in the wrong way.
And then hope that there are no "evil and power-collecting" humans in the government, as the history tells us?...(pick a socialistic/communistic country of choice).
No matter who controls substantial amounts of money/power/etc., some of those humans will always benefit in some way - it´s human nature.
I´m sorry, I´m actually not trying to bug you this time, but I´m still missing this threat and collapse factor you mentioned before. A systems/country/society´s cyclus will most probably never change from the fact that you have rise and fall periods (cooked down a lot... I know.. )
No matter who controls substantial amounts of money/power/etc., some of those humans will always benefit in some way - it´s human nature.
I´m sorry, I´m actually not trying to bug you this time, but I´m still missing this threat and collapse factor you mentioned before. A systems/country/society´s cyclus will most probably never change from the fact that you have rise and fall periods (cooked down a lot... I know.. )
yes but it would be limited to 145 people in Denmarks case, do you understand the difference in this from the current situation. 145 is a managable number of people to breath down the neck, even for a 5 million people population. Right now it is in the hands of someone called marked forces, do you know that guy? did you elect him?
For a real image of inflation of money, just ask your grand dad what he paid for a loaf of bread. this thing is not moving in curves, its moving down and wobbles along the way.
In short words, ok...What is going on is that because the amount of money is in fact out of control and not like it should be limite dto the amount of ACTUAL business giong on, it has to be countered with crazed over production for the FIAT to keep its value. So the core of over consumption is not us, it is happening because its forced to happen. We havent suddenyl developed new needs as a species, but boy has a lot of them been made up for us, then because of this vicious over production people get sick as our envirenments are trashed which spawns another vicious cycle of companies that has an invested interrest in people being ill, as opposed to cureing, all driven by the seemingly larger amount of money present (in fact just devaluated IOU's on gold)....
What im getting at is that when such an important thing as our trade with eachother are controlled by this ....thing....when the real core of our civilisation gets infected with such rot, everything we touch with it will be infected. We NEED to change the money system and make it sane, and a lot of the problems we face will slowly fade to more sane levels. It makes sense and you know it!
In short words, ok...What is going on is that because the amount of money is in fact out of control and not like it should be limite dto the amount of ACTUAL business giong on, it has to be countered with crazed over production for the FIAT to keep its value. So the core of over consumption is not us, it is happening because its forced to happen. We havent suddenyl developed new needs as a species, but boy has a lot of them been made up for us, then because of this vicious over production people get sick as our envirenments are trashed which spawns another vicious cycle of companies that has an invested interrest in people being ill, as opposed to cureing, all driven by the seemingly larger amount of money present (in fact just devaluated IOU's on gold)....
What im getting at is that when such an important thing as our trade with eachother are controlled by this ....thing....when the real core of our civilisation gets infected with such rot, everything we touch with it will be infected. We NEED to change the money system and make it sane, and a lot of the problems we face will slowly fade to more sane levels. It makes sense and you know it!
Quote:
"marked forces"
you mean market forces?
yes I often trust market forces more than bureocracy...
Quote:
but i don't know where to start.
choose randomly:
[] rotating cube
[] tunnel
[] hypnoglow
[] all of the above
Francis: But neveretheless that is
1) A theoretical risk. Perhaps a serious and threatening one, but we're not there yet.
2) OFF-TOPIC! Feel free to start a thread where you discuss this issue, but the origin of all this was the statement
This may be a bad system in different ways, but that's a topic for another thread. Can you tell me how you practically live a life that is not about money? With this question I want to know what you get paid by your boss for working? What you pay for your food? Etc...
Or is it so that your life actually is (practically) very influenced by money, just that you choose to deny it for political reasons.
And please don't give me another post about fractional reserve banking and inflation, but one about the practical life that you live today. (Because I'm very certain that HeXeN originally talked about his practical life)
1) A theoretical risk. Perhaps a serious and threatening one, but we're not there yet.
2) OFF-TOPIC! Feel free to start a thread where you discuss this issue, but the origin of all this was the statement
Quote:
made by HeXeN, which you tried to refute. Fact is that today, all of our lives practically revolve around money in that we need and use it everyday. life is about money
This may be a bad system in different ways, but that's a topic for another thread. Can you tell me how you practically live a life that is not about money? With this question I want to know what you get paid by your boss for working? What you pay for your food? Etc...
Or is it so that your life actually is (practically) very influenced by money, just that you choose to deny it for political reasons.
And please don't give me another post about fractional reserve banking and inflation, but one about the practical life that you live today. (Because I'm very certain that HeXeN originally talked about his practical life)
yes, but a lot of your argumentation have already been implemented in various systems (socialism/communism) - please ask the people wo live(d) through those systems, and hear if they had a nice life? Some would say yes, and some would say no.
In theory, a system would be perfect if all humans were to be equal, and a few persons controlled the goods.
However you would loose a lot of capacity that drives evolution forward (those people that are often funded by the money that is mentioned above - by the "market force") - evolution is risky business, but it is also rewarded well in it´s current state.
Somehow whining about the "market force" is the same for me as to be whining about that Spain is a better soccer-team than Denmark.
Dont get me wrong, but some kind of market force will ALWAYS exist, whatever system you have, since the market force is a direct result of you and me demanding services, goods, PC´s software, movies, medicine, health-safety from... the system.
People who bring what the majorty demands will be rewarded, and thus people strive to satisfy the majorty´s demands. This would also happen in a trade/favour-based system. Money (electronic or on paper) is a simplified way of handling this mechanism - and yes - it can fail, but that is for sure not the fault of the money, but the fault of some people striving too far - or he majority demanding more than they can ask for.
In theory, a system would be perfect if all humans were to be equal, and a few persons controlled the goods.
However you would loose a lot of capacity that drives evolution forward (those people that are often funded by the money that is mentioned above - by the "market force") - evolution is risky business, but it is also rewarded well in it´s current state.
Somehow whining about the "market force" is the same for me as to be whining about that Spain is a better soccer-team than Denmark.
Dont get me wrong, but some kind of market force will ALWAYS exist, whatever system you have, since the market force is a direct result of you and me demanding services, goods, PC´s software, movies, medicine, health-safety from... the system.
People who bring what the majorty demands will be rewarded, and thus people strive to satisfy the majorty´s demands. This would also happen in a trade/favour-based system. Money (electronic or on paper) is a simplified way of handling this mechanism - and yes - it can fail, but that is for sure not the fault of the money, but the fault of some people striving too far - or he majority demanding more than they can ask for.
Ger. yeah, im Danish, forgive me.
Nitro
it wasnt theoretical on wall street. Nor was it in London. We have seen this thing spin out of control several times, in fact it is not long ago that another buble of, not production, but over expectation bursts, though without as serious consequences as had been seen before. expectation is not money, thats nonsense. The depressions are not created by a lack of work force to create, but the lack of money to make it happen, how can that be. Think!
pratical in my own life i have made a lot of arrangements that makes me need a lot less money. I guess like anything else this is just about networking an nothing else really. You do my sink, i do your lawn. I dont borrow money at the bank ever, as this will only make the money i have in my pocket worth even less.
Nitro
it wasnt theoretical on wall street. Nor was it in London. We have seen this thing spin out of control several times, in fact it is not long ago that another buble of, not production, but over expectation bursts, though without as serious consequences as had been seen before. expectation is not money, thats nonsense. The depressions are not created by a lack of work force to create, but the lack of money to make it happen, how can that be. Think!
pratical in my own life i have made a lot of arrangements that makes me need a lot less money. I guess like anything else this is just about networking an nothing else really. You do my sink, i do your lawn. I dont borrow money at the bank ever, as this will only make the money i have in my pocket worth even less.
Caring for the family has altso been implemented by the nazis, what is your point? Im not talking about adopting communism, that is persiflage