pouët.net

[offtopic last post seriously] No, sorry If you think I'm in defense mode. I'm not really disappointed of conspiracy world. Only thing which i criticize is that It's as lack of real sources. Conspiracy is more like religion or spooky tales for adults. Skepticism is to be open both sides and question even the questioner. I always found funny that these conspiracy guys pull all these theories to every forum after some big guy has talked about them. It's almost like conspiracy meme that spreads. Like Ronbotism. It's just keeps spreading. And then people find more "reasons" from blocky youtube videos and unclassified goverment documents and from some other "experts" that aren't really experts. If one big figure from 9/11 truthers thinks Ron Paul is great president then everyone else does too. Anyway, I just shared couple of my thoughts. I don't label you. Btw. if you didn't know Alex Jones is friend of Senator Pat Buchanan. There is something to chew to for you anyway :D [/offtopic]

that's a key point here. in my country (Hungary) you can just walk in to the stock market and buy a share of the #1 private bank (OTP). I guess it works like that in Denmark, too. if there was something badly funky with those banks, you could see YOUR shares skyrocket.

the fact that you can play into the game say swhat about its honesty excactly Ger, you can start smuggling drugs too, no problems, but it is right?

unseen the thing here is, you keep associating me with the 911 movement, and by large i think they are as retarded as the equally big, passionate, and deceitful anti 9/11 movement. They suck up just about everything they get in contact with, so a lot of things can be easily dismissed if the seriousness of an issue is paralel to the 9/11 troofers knowledge of it. But just like politicians, they are not allways off target. So i try to refrain from using guilt by association.

Iblis: I don't get you - you DIDN'T want a money system?... you wanted a system based mostly on favours/"trade".. ?

Also you, sir, are putting me in a box, and might I quote you:


So now I will judge you:

<rant>
Have you noticed how you're able to point ANY THREAD into a political direction (that you like) and then keep printing the same view from your side over and over again? You're much like the guy at the party that always takes up that same subject and is very stubborn...
</rant>

However this entire developed form a poor guy writing

Which, however fucking ever you put it, in many ways are right. Yes, you could have a system that was less money based, but you STILL had to work to get your life running - to fulfill your needs. I don't fucking care HOW people make their life run - as long as they do, and if you make it your way, that's totally awesome - but don't expect that all others agree with you - and do NOT judge all others as being unitelligent or stupid, because we do not share your opinion.

I', stating that as long humans are as they are they ALWAYS want more no matter if the schools were better, they would STILL want taht awesome 42" TV, superfast car - you name it. It's a very STUPID habit, however it's human nature - if you really want to argue against that... well.. suit yourself - but simply argumenting that a change of system would make the world a perfect place is not true - also it is not true that inflation is stealing money from people, like you stated some posts ago - also you stated that there was a great danger of collapse - well, hello - we have ssen collapses - and we will se them again - you cannot systemize you butt out of any problems...

oh, I forgot to add, that after a collpase, there comes a rise - just like your entire life always will be - it's ups and downs, and no system will change that (also not in a big scale).

what youre doing is dismissing the whole advertisement industry, what do you think they are doing and being paid good money for doing? Im raising the issue of the money system because it needs to be taken care of before a lot of people, altso in the west, will get hurt.

Dont mix up my personal disgust with consumerism, with the pressing need to adress, or rather force those we elect to deal with it. The only way this can happen, is if people know about it. And im being stubborn because it really is THAT important. Be honest, had you ever even heard the words fractional reserve banking before.

So far you have not really adressed anything about using fractional reserve banking, but keep sidetracking this very specific issue with human nature and the philosophies thereof. I have suggested one way of dealing with it, but it is far from the only way to deal with it.

understand that my use of a more favour based economy is because the one in place is what it is, there would be no need for this with a fair and sane money system.

well on that last one, we agree :)

where we differ i think, is that i belive we should learn from the history now that we bother to write it down, instead of using it as a step programme to repeat.

Iblis: I have argued that the current system is not failsafe, but that it also has the advantages of actually boosting development (and, yes, this can go wrong, which I also stated...but everything in the world can go wrong)


Also I'm trying to tell you that with your system - if you have the same possibilities as with this system, but without the fractional reserver - you would still have the humans.
And the humans would still behave the same way - which will lead investors to invest in production of goods that will "satisfy" the consumers (well... I don't think that consumerism will ever disappear).
So now, when the crash happens (because they do in economics, and that's a fact), please tell me if Mr. Doe that get's fired because his Factory doesn't get funded by private investors anymore, is more happy than if the factory was partly reserve-funded? - this is what I am trying to tell you!

Also you're still lying about inflation - and you using an argument like this:

which doesn't really make any sense at all, since like ALL other factors in the world changed meantime as well as the value of money.

Iblis, now I'm trying to get to your base point. I have a couple of assumptions (If these are not true, let's get back to them later):
* you accept money.
* you accept interest.
* you accept "state debt money" (fiat money).

Let me make one more thing clear: in the present system, only the states can issue fiat money. Absolutely. It's NOT outsourced. There's a central bank, ECB in the eurozone, MNB in Hungary, and [substitute yours] in Denmark. If you thought otherwise, then this present system might actually be the one you were dreaming of.

That seems somehow relevant. :P

so what IS outsourced is dealing with customers. the central bank only deals with banks, and banks deal with customers. Your company, Aunt Mary, me, you.

There's actually a HUGE risk in dealing with all these people: estimating whether they'd be able to pay their credits back or not... You'd really like your state insource that risk?

Banking is just a business, like computing, car manufacturing, etc. You're basically saying "private companies are making big money on [certain business], so why doesn't the state do it itself?"

It's because states tend to suck at running business. Because for that, you need very strong personal interest and accountability. If your company does things wrong and goes bankrupt, you lose all your money - that's accountability. if a state institution fcks up things, the government will increase its budget for the next year. [maybe 4 years later you'll vote for someone else... who knows?]

So if certain business, like customer and corporate banking, was insourced, state would make LESS MONEY on it - or possibly even LOSE MONEY on it! Instead, they let private people (like me and you) run business. Owners pay their taxes after the income, from the rest they buy services which in turn pay taxes - interpret this recursively.

pyrix, how does it help development in any way? i know this mantra, but evidence does not speak in its favour.

what is the lie about infaltion? What excactly has changed?, the worth of wor?k, the worth of an apple to eat?, what has changed excactly but money? You really need to stop blaming me for your own assumptions.

Ger, it is an assumption that it is the state that issues money, the state has members in the BOARD of those banks, members you dont elect, but that your electees select. It is not a single bank however it is a conglamoration of them, that much is out in the open here in Denmark, but i wish you the best of luck finding out who they are, so far i have had zero no luck.

I accept money being nothing but the exchange of service, not a commodity or item of value. So my question to you still is, why do you willingly pay the bank for a "service" that if in the hands of your government would benefit you, and everyone else, as opposed to benefit only a few bankers who did never create anything, but the item of exchange used for our deal?

i accept interrest to the benefit for all, no other kind of interrest.

i accept any item of exchange backed by actual value, and not just promises to pay and a public religiously held belief in it to be true.

And this little piccy shows how a 10% fractional reserve in practice allows the total amount of money in circulation to be up to 100 times what's backed by government fiat currency (which itself is not necessarily fully backed by real value).



So, all we need is continued exponential growth forever and we'll be fine. Yay.

Bd hehe nice one!

Ger, you are assuming a lot of things here to be true that simply arent so. If the government issue money, why do they need to borrow them ever? think about it for a minute.

There is NO risk involved with dealing with people thats a fucking lie. they make up the money, how can there by a risk, a risk of what?
that they dont pay back the money they just made up?

battle droid, streight to the point, thank you.

We can agree that people are interested in earning money, right?
Ok, so the owner of company x is interested in earning money - a part of money is to reduce costs. Costs can be reduced in a lot of ways - here let me give you an example:
If you a bit about computing/programming you also know about certain algorithms that tell you how to find the shortest path through a lot of points - many of theese algorithms were discovered by people who had a lot of trucks transporting goods in their company - by optimizing the route of the transportation you do:
1. Reduce the overall time for transportation
2. Reduce the amount of trucks needed
3. Other small side-gains (less people to organize, etc.)

This of course results in less poeple hired, which you could argument as a bad thing - however it also reduces pollution a lot, even though the goods a delivered faster.

Also, one of the largest business' in Denmark (Vestas) are manufacturing windmills - a business that is very very relevant now - but REALLY took its beating some years ago because it was funded hard with no rewards.

A lot of pharmacy companies realy 100% on pure funding (mostly private) - MANY of these companies never develop a product of any use - but a few does - and some even develop products that are essential health-wise in modern society. Yes - the products may be expensive - but another company is free to develop a competing product which is cheaper.

A lot of these developments are VERY risky in the beginning - and many does not succeed - but some does. And I think a lot of companies actually do drive evolution forward (of course other companies don't, I know that)


You said that inflation was an excuse for stealing money:

Who is stealing the money? - Inflation is driven by consumers unless the national bank is printing more money than it should (which I guess no natioanl bank dare to do anymore)
What has changed? - well funny enough THE CONSUMERS during the years have become become willing to pay MORE and more for real estate, thus increasing wages (as I wrote - the consumers are the ones controlling the inflation - of course the national bank, can raise the interest to clam down consumption - and it should do when nescesarry!)

To your information - a lot of the loans that the banks issue, is traded on the market. Yes that means that Mr. Doe can "buy" your loan and earn money on your interests.

I understand tat you think that the bank is earning money on nothing. albeit they are earning a lot of money (can't argue against that) - I would really like to see how much time one person would use to organize his needs in a "moneyless" society - he has to have like 500 contacts with people that can do x and y for hum/her - that time would be immense, and what happens when one contact is not available anymore? With money it is easier to get a rather quick overview of what to get where - especially in a global multinational society.

but puryx dammit...none of this accounts for the fractional reserve banking system. What you say about vestas is true, but how does it tie into fractional reserve, and its supposed benefits for development?

vesta is another good case because it was the "ineffective" governments goodwill, and long sightedness that kept it afloat as far as i reckall. As opposed to bankers usual hit for fast and large gains.

A bank can go into bankrupcy as well as any other business, I do not udnerstand what the big deal is about that?

The state guarantee custumors their money back (well, most of it - upto a certain amount).
Also the state can deny a bank to establish business in the country (at least that how it is in Denmark)
Last but not least - as we see right now in the bank-sector with eg. Northern Rock, when these things happen, the banks are NOT lending each other money anymore (check it out, it's happening right now), and thus breaking the evil circle-blackboard-picture that BD posted above. This is ALSO a part of the market force, that you are so unhappy with. I will regulate itself - sometimes with crashes, yes, but we have seen crashes before, but the world still stands.

Just as a quick note, the current system with very few fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking leading to debt-based economies, etc., is not equal to "a society that uses money". There are many other ways to go about it.

Iblis: it was answers to the question you asked - wheter some of the money used for the funding of these companies originate from the fractional reserver NO-ONE knows... you were asking how the market force was helping development in a positive way (also for the environment) - and quite frankly I answered you!
You still havn't told me why it doesn't - but nevertheless you keep repeating it.

Vestas is a fusion of at least three former industries - and if you don't think that a bank did some loans somewhere in this business (thus referring to the reserve), then I don't know what you're trying to say?

no im asking how fractional reserve helps development, sorry if this was unclear. I really fail to understand how that is, if anything i see it as predatorial in nature and its demand for a perpetual growth cycle kill a lot of small business and ideas, as opposed to more diversity and choice.

The money to fund vestas definately came from the fractional reserve, obviously it did, thats the system in place wher else should it come from? Purys, i dont mean to be rude, i thank you for having engaged me rationally, but it is obvious that im not dealing with your reason, this last post of yours shows that you still have no idea what the fractional reserve system is, what it implicates not just locally but globally. Why do you want to debate an issue where you dont even have the basics nailed down?

bd. i agree, i have suggested one model that caught my attention, but that is all it is, not a finite solution.

you know the worst thing i can imagine is if it ever dawns on bankers that there is a resource that is practically unlimited. One that would allow for an ever growing production that readily replenish itself . But, i take it that noone could be that cold just to keep this faulty engine running.

Iblis: then you were unclear and/or I misunderstood - I thought you asked how the "market force" was helping development - which I then answered.

I'm perfectly clear that the fractional reserve can lead to a collapse if the banks keep lending money to each other all the time - however as the recent issues in the bank-sector shows, then the banks are not that willing to lend each other the money anymore (thus stopping a potential dangerous development)

The whole discussion actually originated from a suggestion from your side that a society should have a less money-influenced system, which I still see no reason for - also I see no link between this and the fraction reserver, which are two quite different matters.

I made a good danish typo there as well :)

no i meant that as a solution to the current situation, as these concepts have become religiously adopted by large, simply because its the ONLY option ever presented to us. im opting for a money system that relies a little more on actual control from those i trust with such issues, and a little less on the good nature and heart of bankers, thank you. :)

I simply dont know how else to fight it, than becomming more independant on its services, but im open to suggestions obviously.