Stupid World

[mashman]

Fuck, having proven yerself an idiot, you just keep proving it some more.
You don't post here about writing in six different computer languages, you post here about economics and business.
And in those areas, you are ignorant and stupid.

It was an example that I see you chose to miss. Bad luck.
pssssst, dickhead, applications perform all sorts of little jobbies (and unfortunately sometimes drive) business and economics. Pot kettle.
:crybaby:

[mashman]

Fuck you're mediocre (probably the best compliment I will ever give you)

On the one hand, only 6 languages? git gud shitty, those six are probably not even from separate families either.

On the other hand, that is a number of languages, so you clearly know some things; therefore, you are undoubtedly doing it all wrong since you clearly haven't 'unlearned what you have learned' enough...

Thanks.......

[Oscar]

It was an example that I see you chose to miss. Bad luck.
pssssst, dickhead, applications perform all sorts of little jobbies (and unfortunately sometimes drive) business and economics. Pot kettle.
:crybaby:

Weak, even for you.
Are you saying you have an application to run the economy?

As I say, we get it - you can stop trying to prove that you're blowhard idjut..

[mashman]

Weak, even for you.
Are you saying you have an application to run the economy?

As I say, we get it - you can stop trying to prove that you're blowhard idjut..

You carry on believing that which you choose to believe... and I'll carry on knowing better.
Nope.

Get what?

[Oscar]

Get what?

That you are a blowhard and an idiot.

[mashman]

That you are a blowhard and an idiot.

:yawn:....................

[blue rider]

an article that will not be reprinted in the herald.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

[mashman]

an article that will not be reprinted in the herald.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Nasty look at reality. On the positive side, it's hard (all but impossible) to justify war to an armed force that isn't being paid. R.B.E. baby... it ain't about the money ;).

[bogan]

Nasty look at reality. On the positive side, it's hard (all but impossible) to justify war to an armed force that isn't being paid. R.B.E. baby... it ain't about the money ;).

Apart from those religious ones, or the ones for land, or oil, or other resources...

You know the guy who coined the term R.B.E uses a world war as an example of how an RBE can work right?

At this point I wonder if you are just trying to say things that are profoundly wrong? because I'd like to believe nobody could be as stupid as you seem determined to appear...

[oldrider]

And will "the real orchestrator's of all this aggravation" ever stand up and be counted? ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0v7_O53J0k .:no: Interesting observation!

[mashman]

Apart from those religious ones, or the ones for land, or oil, or other resources...

You know the guy who coined the term R.B.E uses a world war as an example of how an RBE can work right?

At this point I wonder if you are just trying to say things that are profoundly wrong? because I'd like to believe nobody could be as stupid as you seem determined to appear...

There won't be any need, coz we'll be sharing everything.

I'm more than aware than any number of disasters could spur mankind into action, but I've yet to see any evidence of this in the longer term. Chch fixed yet? No, they're waiting on the money to become available. The thing is, it doesn't have to go that far.

I like tools version: "Some say a comet will fall from the sky. Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves. Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still. Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits. Some say the end is near. Some say we'll see armageddon soon. I certainly hope we will cuz I sure could use a vacation from this Silly shit, stupid shit.".

You don't know how an R.B.E. works, because you are tied to someone else's plan. I'm not, and never will, knock Jacques plan, but I believe that waiting for a "natural" disaster is a mistake and a waste. If there is a world war, those who go into the bunkers aren't you, me and Jacque. therefore those who come out of the bunkers will carry on with what they know, and it won't be a Resource Based Economy. But by all means ignore that as a logical fallacy and carry on with yer head up yer arse. Or try thinking for yourself for a change. Either way it makes no great difference to me, as I'm not responsible for your thoughts and actions.

[bogan]

You don't know how an R.B.E. works, because you are tied to someone else's plan

Actually I'm not tied to somebody else plan, but the term RBE is. The ability to actually have a plan is what sets me and jaques apart from you, as you just narcissistically insist on whining about how right you are while contributing nothing. Jaques is doing it, I'm doing it, what are you doing? Claiming some sort of superiority because your ideals based on ignorance sounds better in your head than those of us who are doing something; that is is utterly pathetic, you are a detriment to the cause you claim to champion.

Nor do I hope for an apocalyptic event to prove how wrong society is, that is fucked up in the extreme to wish that amount of harm on people purely to prove ones own views are correct. That sort of talk just shows the impotence of your way of thinking.

[mashman]

Actually I'm not tied to somebody else plan, but the term RBE is.

Son, you're wired about as wrongly as I've seen a person... and that statement proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[bogan]

Son, you're wired about as wrongly as I've seen a person... and that statement proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well, to keep you reminded of that, feel free to print it out many times, roll them up, and go fuck yourself with it. :love:

[mashman]

Well, to keep you reminded of that, feel free to print it out many times, roll them up, and go fuck yourself with it. :love:

Ah, deflection.

[bogan]

Ah, deflection.

Of what? your hiding behind word semantics again? I already came up with a name for your shit (it is not an RBE because you allow personal ownership to continue), just run with that to save confusion.

[mashman]

Of what? your hiding behind word semantics again? I already came up with a name for your shit (it is not an RBE because you allow personal ownership to continue), just run with that to save confusion.

There ya go again. I thought you may have grasped what personal ownership is. You don't. I'm of a mind not to tell you either, so, believe me when I tell you that personal ownership is absolutely unavoidable (irrespective of R.B.E. theorum), and then use that single cell of yours to come up with a set of circumstances where that may actually be true. If you can't, then you lose.

[bogan]

There ya go again. I thought you may have grasped what personal ownership is. You don't. I'm of a mind not to tell you either, so, believe me when I tell you that personal ownership is absolutely unavoidable (irrespective of R.B.E. theorum), and then use that single cell of yours to come up with a set of circumstances where that may actually be true. If you can't, then you lose.

It isn't unavoidable at all. Except for consumables of course (which in fact one could argue as word semantics anyway) but that is not what personal ownership means in the context of an RBE obviously. Sounds like you're going to do a wishy washy on what you've previously impled cos that doesn't sound so good anymore, way to stick with a plan numbnuts.

[mashman]

It isn't unavoidable at all. Except for consumables of course (which in fact one could argue as word semantics anyway) but that is not what personal ownership means in the context of an RBE obviously. Sounds like you're going to do a wishy washy on what you've previously impled cos that doesn't sound so good anymore, way to stick with a plan numbnuts.

"All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few", guess who? Semantics? What you mean that which you decide is nothing more than semantic? Pulease. You own what you have at that point in time. When you don't have it, you don't own it. Think TVP library project as an example. that's not semantics, that'll be an attitude toward looking after the resource.

Look soony boy me laddo, I have implied nothing. YOU have inferred what you believe I mean and persist in doing despite my attempts to suggest otherwise. It simply does not affect me when I know that you don't have a point.

[bogan]

"All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few", guess who? Semantics? What you mean that which you decide is nothing more than semantic? Pulease. You own what you have at that point in time. When you don't have it, you don't own it. Think TVP library project as an example. that's not semantics, that'll be an attitude toward looking after the resource.

Look soony boy me laddo, I have implied nothing. YOU have inferred what you believe I mean and persist in doing despite my attempts to suggest otherwise. It simply does not affect me when I know that you don't have a point.

Yet when I asked you, all you said was that it would be up to the individual. That is why your shit is not an RBE.

You've repeatedly refuse to quantify pretty much all aspect of your RBE, simply so you can hide behind word semantics like you are doing now; better for you narcissism, but worse for your cause. Lets see which is more important, can you summarise the main points as I have done?

[mashman]

Yet when I asked you, all you said was that it would be up to the individual. That is why your shit is not an RBE.

You've repeatedly refuse to quantify pretty much all aspect of your RBE, simply so you can hide behind word semantics like you are doing now; better for you narcissism, but worse for your cause. Lets see which is more important, can you summarise the main points as I have done?

And that is also true. Figure it out.

I choose not to.

[bogan]

And that is also true. Figure it out.

I choose not to.

We've all figured it out, you just say what you think people want to hear, but in reality have no plan or clue how things work. Acting all enlightened and superior is a very thin veil in your case.

[mashman]

We've all figured it out, you just say what you think people want to hear, but in reality have no plan or clue how things work. Acting all enlightened and superior is a very thin veil in your case.

:killingme I'll not repeat myself this time. Good luck with your R.B.E.

[mashman]

an article that will not be reprinted in the herald.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Aye, no need to print truth these days, it just doesn't make people feel good about themselves for some reason.

[Brian d marge]

Damn .....90 % in 5 years time in getting me TV

According to Max and Stacy .....


Reckon London will go first ........

[mashman]

Damn .....90 % in 5 years time in getting me TV

According to Max and Stacy .....


Reckon London will go first ........

TV's should be kick ass in 5 years time... although I do lol at the thought of the US or the UK becoming the reformists. Wonder if Baldwin will run for il presidentez.

[Brian d marge]

If Muslim Needed Help? Amazing Young Man Who Stop…: http://youtu.be/ntQBZmj4hrc

The world in action

[mashman]

If Muslim Needed Help? Amazing Young Man Who Stop…: http://youtu.be/ntQBZmj4hrc

The world in action

Brilliant...

[bogan]

http://stuppid.com/black-donor-neo-nazi/

On the one hand, serves the racist fucking drop kicks right. On the other, fuck that kid needs to be adopted out to have a chance at a decent life.

[oldrider]

I have never understood the words of Lorde's song "Royal" so today I googled her name to see if I could enlighten myself about her. :confused:

This is one of the crazy things that popped up: http://imperatorfish.com/2013/10/07/is-lorde-an-anti-semite-too/

Talk about a "stupid world" when you get seriously precious shit like this posted ... the kid (Lorde) was 15 and relatively sheltered when she wrote the script FFS!

[Brian d marge]

Dump dee doo

Russia paid down a massive $52.8 billion in foreign debt

cant buy a tv with US dollars .....

I think I have a new five year plan !!! hahahahahahahaaaaa


Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Remember

Stabilize, privatize, and liberalize

its the only way , the American way .....

Stephen

[bogan]

Remember

Stabilize, privatize, and liberalize

its the only way , the American way .....

Stephen

liberalize?

http://www.lamebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nitwit.jpg

even jesus be more liberal than them...

[Brian d marge]

liberalize?

http://www.lamebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/nitwit.jpg

even jesus be more liberal than them...
liberalise , means , make it easier to move money ....usually overseas ....

Stephen

[mashman]

German gloom deepens as investor sentiment hits 23-month low (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25258819/german-gloom-deepens-as-investor-sentiment-hits-23-month-low/) Max said don't worry coz the bundesbank, ECB are to expand their balance sheet by 10 trillion euros. Money solves everything eh... heh, not much longer if Max is right about the bond debt bubble bursting.

[Brian d marge]

German gloom deepens as investor sentiment hits 23-month low (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25258819/german-gloom-deepens-as-investor-sentiment-hits-23-month-low/) Max said don't worry coz the bundesbank, ECB are to expand their balance sheet by 10 trillion euros. Money solves everything eh... heh, not much longer if Max is right about the bond debt bubble bursting.
QE is just a way to move cash to the banks , its not increasing the inflation rate as traditional money printing would , aka Wiemar republic

BUT remember clinton removed the glass seagal act , it does allow speculation, and the increased lending of money especially for hard assets , ( housing etc)

The increased cost of essential hard assets , I THINK will be the tipping point ( for the average shmoe ) and / OR if the gold and silver price start to increase ( for the bond debt ) , by that time the smart money would already be sitting sweet.

The similar may happen in Germany IF they start buying private assets and trying to get the money to move ..

Snip

The ECB is swelling its balance sheet (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/EBBSTOTA:IND) as it seeks to revive inflation of 0.3 percent, the lowest in almost five years. By buying private-sector assets, as it plans to do from this month, or continuing to accept collateral from banks in return for cheap loans, it is pushing liquidity into the economy.

Stephen

and why are they so worried about deflation.....

[mashman]

QE is just a way to move cash to the banks , its not increasing the inflation rate as traditional money printing would , aka Wiemar republic

BUT remember clinton removed the glass seagal act , it does allow speculation, and the increased lending of money especially for hard assets , ( housing etc)

The increased cost of essential hard assets , I THINK will be the tipping point ( for the average shmoe ) and / OR if the gold and silver price start to increase ( for the bond debt ) , by that time the smart money would already be sitting sweet.

The similar may happen in Germany IF they start buying private assets and trying to get the money to move ..

Snip

The ECB is swelling its balance sheet (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/EBBSTOTA:IND) as it seeks to revive inflation of 0.3 percent, the lowest in almost five years. By buying private-sector assets, as it plans to do from this month, or continuing to accept collateral from banks in return for cheap loans, it is pushing liquidity into the economy.

Stephen

It's a way to print money irrespective of how it's dressed. The economy needs more money in order to bolster GDP dunnit, so buy some more imaginary shit, like bonds, or change the value of gold, or change the value of a oil, or change the value of a tally stick, it makes no odds as it all comes from the same place. They say we could end poverty using a chunk of accumulated wealth, yet we'd end up back in exactly the same place in what, 20 years? Maybe 30?. Getting money into the system is the name of the game, the mechanism and associated rate changes matters not, nor does the law or legislation or whatever the financial rules say. Liquidity is just another way of saying that we have so imaginary asset/valuation that backs up the money we're printing, so it's all cool, ok.

[Brian d marge]

It's a way to print money irrespective of how it's dressed. The economy needs more money in order to bolster GDP dunnit, so buy some more imaginary shit, like bonds, or change the value of gold, or change the value of a oil, or change the value of a tally stick, it makes no odds as it all comes from the same place. They say we could end poverty using a chunk of accumulated wealth, yet we'd end up back in exactly the same place in what, 20 years? Maybe 30?. Getting money into the system is the name of the game, the mechanism and associated rate changes matters not, nor does the law or legislation or whatever the financial rules say. Liquidity is just another way of saying that we have so imaginary asset/valuation that backs up the money we're printing, so it's all cool, ok.

Agreed and a shift in the paradigm is needed
in the meantime we need a way to stop our glorious leaders from selling us down the road , and to take back the wealth that has been stolen through manipulative rule changes
Stephen

[Brian d marge]

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION NOVEMBER 8: KIWIS FIGHT BACK!
Click to join us in: Auckland (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/auckland/), Hamilton (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/hamilton/), Raglan (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/raglan/), Tauranga (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/tauranga/), Rotorua (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/rotorua/), New Plymouth (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/new-plymouth/), Gisborne (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/gisborne/), Napier (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/napier/), Palmerston North (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/palmerston-north/), Levin (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/levin/), Wellington (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/wellington/), Nelson (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/nelson/), Christchurch (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/christchurch/), Timaru (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/timaru/), Dunedin (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/dunedin/), Invercargill (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/invercargill/).

Say no to the tppa

[avgas]

Say no to the tppa


But I like toilet paper.

[yokel]

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION NOVEMBER 8: KIWIS FIGHT BACK!
Click to join us in: Auckland (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/auckland/), Hamilton (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/hamilton/), Raglan (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/raglan/), Tauranga (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/tauranga/), Rotorua (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/rotorua/), New Plymouth (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/new-plymouth/), Gisborne (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/gisborne/), Napier (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/napier/), Palmerston North (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/palmerston-north/), Levin (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/levin/), Wellington (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/wellington/), Nelson (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/nelson/), Christchurch (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/christchurch/), Timaru (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/timaru/), Dunedin (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/dunedin/), Invercargill (http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/th_event/invercargill/).

Say no to the tppa


Fuck yeah I'll be there with my MC helmet and baseball bat! Haha

[blue rider]

http://www..org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/#.VDyFZmlRVo8.facebook

nice little graphics for those that like that kind of stuff.


attention, the information surely must be from a disreputable source :)

[mashman]

http://www..org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/#.VDyFZmlRVo8.facebook

nice little graphics for those that like that kind of stuff.


attention, the information surely must be from a disreputable source :)

Linky ist brokeded.

[Banditbandit]

I have never understood the words of Lorde's song "Royal" so today I googled her name to see if I could enlighten myself about her. :confused:

This is one of the crazy things that popped up: http://imperatorfish.com/2013/10/07/is-lorde-an-anti-semite-too/

Talk about a "stupid world" when you get seriously precious shit like this posted ... the kid (Lorde) was 15 and relatively sheltered when she wrote the script FFS!

Fuck that's a very very long bow he's drawing .. mostly in his own fantasy ..

here's the whole lyrics...

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/lorde/royals.html

There's NOTHING in it about Nazis, the holocaust or Jews ... The lyrics he quotes:

My friends and I—we've cracked the code.
We count our dollars on the train to the party.
And everyone who knows us knows that we're fine with this,
We didn't come from money.

are simply descriptive of what teenage girls do on the way to a party ..

This part ..

Let me be your ruler (ruler),
You can call me queen Bee
And baby I'll rule, I'll rule, I'll rule, I'll rule.
Let me live that fantasy.

This is the teenage girl fantasy of being the "ruler" of her group .. the Queen Bee ... nothing else ...

Dumbasses Scott Yorke ...

[Banditbandit]

But I like toilet paper.

Umm .. can you expand on that please ??? I kinda have strange visions of what you are doing with toilet paper ..

[mashman]

Umm .. can you expand on that please ??? I kinda have strange visions of what you are doing with toilet paper ..

I see what he did... he could have also that he likes te papa, but it wouldn't have had the same ring, snigger, to it.

[blue rider]

the intro to this little diddy is well take many many grains of salt and the likes.

but the list of police mis-handlings, mis-speakings, mis-hittings, mis-drinkings, mis-drivings, mis-doings and the likes, impressive. Who needs criminals when you can have the NZ Police Force.

oy weh.

http://laudafinem.com/category/lauda-finem-investigates/

[blue rider]

Linky ist brokeded.



scuse me

should be betterer now

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/free-trade-explained-in-an-excellent-comic/

[Banditbandit]

I see what he did... he could have also that he likes te papa, but it wouldn't have had the same ring, snigger, to it.

Yeah .. I saw what he did to .. and I thought it was amusing .. then I saw the statement in isolation .. and that brought up other mental images !!!

[Brian d marge]

the intro to this little diddy is well take many many grains of salt and the likes.

but the list of police mis-handlings, mis-speakings, mis-hittings, mis-drinkings, mis-drivings, mis-doings and the likes, impressive. Who needs criminals when you can have the NZ Police Force.

oy weh.

http://laudafinem.com/category/lauda-finem-investigates/

I know their job can be difficult , I know they dealt with me a few times ,,,hehehehee but that is a long list ...and while most of them are minor . some aint

least we havent sold them our spare skyhawks

Stephen

[oldrider]

I remember the USA and their freemarket proposals and they only applied to the rest of the world while they still maintained their own subsidies for farmers FFS!

Screw the USA ... the people are generally nice folk but their government stinks and is run and controlled by AIPAC : http://www.aipac.org/

What AIPAC wants AIPAC gets in America and probably what AIPAC wants in NZ ... John Key will give them! :shifty: ... TPPA anyone? :shit:

AIPAC mission video clip: http://www.aipac.org/about/mission Think about what this really means for America!

[mashman]

Yeah .. I saw what he did to .. and I thought it was amusing .. then I saw the statement in isolation .. and that brought up other mental images !!!

Other mental images? Best keep them to yerself iffen ye don't mind as some folks have overly active imaginations.

[Banditbandit]

Here's someone elses' imaginations ...

http://www.tiny9.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/toilet-paper-wedding-dress.jpg

http://www.jeanniejeannie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/03-1.jpg

[mashman]

Agreed and a shift in the paradigm is needed
in the meantime we need a way to stop our glorious leaders from selling us down the road , and to take back the wealth that has been stolen through manipulative rule changes
Stephen

Nah, we can't do a paradigm shift and we don't have to. From this very second in time to wherever it is we need to get to, it's gonna take enough time that that paradigm shift will happen naturally at an individual level.
Their are thieving our future in ways too many knuckfuckles don't consider... thems with an overinflated value of their own financial self-worth deluding themselves into believing that their entitlement complex is some form of justification for being allowed to ransack the future. Puny humans.

[Brian d marge]

Nah, we can't do a paradigm shift and we don't have to. From this very second in time to wherever it is we need to get to, it's gonna take enough time that that paradigm shift will happen naturally at an individual level.
Their are thieving our future in ways too many knuckfuckles don't consider... thems with an overinflated value of their own financial self-worth deluding themselves into believing that their entitlement complex is some form of justification for being allowed to ransack the future. Puny humans.

Ive just ordered new poity things , are you telling me I aint going to get me TV

that entitlement complex does include tvs?

Had me heart set on one by XMas then max tells me its five years .......


Heartbroken

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

the intro to this little diddy is well take many many grains of salt and the likes.

but the list of police mis-handlings, mis-speakings, mis-hittings, mis-drinkings, mis-drivings, mis-doings and the likes, impressive. Who needs criminals when you can have the NZ Police Force.

oy weh.

http://laudafinem.com/category/lauda-finem-investigates/

Dear Mr policeman , SOME cultures dont take too kindly to your idea of law and order .....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jagvYIMJyzU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

[Scuba_Steve]

Propaganda... Yep you see it everyday, especially from your Govt


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8R9MDt4jEc&list=UUrrOic-og4HzhleZqOq4L-A

[avgas]

Umm .. can you expand on that please ??? I kinda have strange visions of what you are doing with toilet paper ..
t-ppa

its good to wipe your bum with.

[mashman]

Ive just ordered new poity things , are you telling me I aint going to get me TV

that entitlement complex does include tvs?

Had me heart set on one by XMas then max tells me its five years .......


Heartbroken

Stephen

315FPS of buying power eh... if all else fails you can have my TV.

[Brian d marge]

315FPS of buying power eh... if all else fails you can have my TV.

Here is a short vid of me entering politics, well , actually its not quite, me, but you get the idea

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/E3ykihXBp5Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Does the telly come with shortland street pre installed?

its very kind of u

Stephen



Actually my political entry would be more like this

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9SW7-8C8kL4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

Here is a short vid of me entering politics, well , actually its not quite, me, but you get the idea

Does the telly come with shortland street pre installed?

its very kind of u

Stephen

Actually my political entry would be more like this



bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa...

Ima comin too... and what I lose through accuracy, I make up for with a fuckload of universe juice and a winning, heh, personality :mellow:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gox6mPaJ17c

You can pick up the TV when we're done.

[yokel]

watch out the Russians are coming, kind of haha

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LexhW8SCM2c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Brian d marge]

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is responsible for regulating the nation’s biggest banks. But new secret audio tapes indicate the banks — not the Fed — are in charge. Congress can keep making the rules tougher and tougher, but it won’t make an ounce of difference if the regulators won’t enforce those rules. Below is a primer to explain what’s going on.

boom chakka lakka

The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived. . . I don’t want to spoil the revelations of ‘This American Life’ . . . But once you have listened to it — as when you were faced with the newly unignorable truth of what actually happened to that NFL running back’s fiancee in that elevator — consider the following:“1. You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.
“2. The only reason you know is that one woman, Carmen Segarra, has been brave enough to fight the system. . .
“So what are you going to do about it? At this moment the Fed is probably telling itself that, like the financial crisis, this, too, will blow over. It shouldn’t.”


hahahahhhaaaaa

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

watch out the Russians are coming, kind of haha



where can I get a chest full of medals ...


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rsz_norks_62.jpg


need more medals .....must have medals

Stephen

[oldrider]

watch out the Russians are coming, kind of haha

The real crime of Russia is that they are allowing Christianity to revive and are part of BRICS banking in opposition to the IMF etc!

Read about it here: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/07/brics-launch-world-bank-imf-rivals-20147155273955388.html

This really pisses off the NWO proponents and Obama is little more than their (stooge) front-man puppet!

[yokel]

The real crime of Russia is that they are allowing Christianity to revive and are part of BRICS banking in opposition to the IMF etc!

Read about it here: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/07/brics-launch-world-bank-imf-rivals-20147155273955388.html

This really pisses off the NWO proponents and Obama is little more than their (stooge) front-man puppet!

How many people know about the BRICS bank? fuck all.
they all be in a dumb ass panic about Ebola. every muppet that can make mouth noises is talking about Ebloa and ISIS or whatever.
Russia not willing to play the NWO's game is something to actually have concern's about.

now what was that meeting Putin was coming back from in the same air space 40 mins before MH17 was shot down?
there was also a Ebloa expert on MH17 with the other AIDS people on root to that AIDS conference.

Happy days ahead haha

[Brian d marge]

Im off to have a beer with duncan . . Or as hes known in his home town
Hafiz Tahir Ashrafi

The piss ead
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WgSTQGYBiRI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

FBI director wants access to encrypt Apple, Google users’ data, demands law ‘fix’ (http://rt.com/usa/197132-fbi-apple-google-privacy/)

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... fuckin wanker.

[Brian d marge]

FBI director wants access to encrypt Apple, Google users’ data, demands law ‘fix’ (http://rt.com/usa/197132-fbi-apple-google-privacy/)

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... fuckin wanker.
If

There was a legitimate reason for the old bill to gain access then fine

Apply to apple get data unlocked

This needs to be done through normal legal channels and open to reviews

Now do i trust the powers that be to not abuse that

No

So untill they can be trusted or have a bullet proof process

They can get fked

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Also on the getfked list
Dear mr joyce

You can go and and get fked

[yokel]

If

There was a legitimate reason for the old bill to gain access then fine

Apply to apple get data unlocked

This needs to be done through normal legal channels and open to reviews

Now do i trust the powers that be to not abuse that

No

So untill they can be trusted or have a bullet proof process

They can get fked

Stephen

I have no issue at all with the FBI wanting to unlock or free up data so as long as they unlock their own data

[mashman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h-A-41DTRw

Professor Antal Fekete (Austrian school of economics) on bubbles (commodity debt v sovereign debt): "The quality is going down and this can be ignored, because only the quantity of money, trying to jack up the quantity of money hoping this will prevent deflation, meaning falling commodity prices, but the central banks don't control how people spend the money. They can print as much as they want, but they cannot control how people spend it."

In a nutshell there's yer problem. Keep printing until it goes tits... if "we" don't care that things are getting more expensive and the social divides become wider, then nothing will change. The stupidity of those espousing that financial policy can achieve that which we "need" (what is it trying to achieve again?) is nothing more than short term thinking, and that's a FACT!

Max reckons that "real competition and real growth" is required in order to set the good ship earth back on track... I reckon that's nothing more than kicking the can down the road and is antithetical to real sustainability.

[mashman]

I have no issue at all with the FBI wanting to unlock or free up data so as long as they unlock their own data

The ultimate in transparency eh. Yup, I'm happy for removing ALL security from the internet. Might get better performance out of it too.

[mashman]

If

There was a legitimate reason for the old bill to gain access then fine

Apply to apple get data unlocked

This needs to be done through normal legal channels and open to reviews

Now do i trust the powers that be to not abuse that

No

So untill they can be trusted or have a bullet proof process

They can get fked

Stephen

Fuck 'em all. Stupidity will always be stupidity if stupid people are allowed to make decisions that drive us towards a society driven by fear of "loss", be that data or financial. Get rid of all internet security, in fact make it law that if any entity is caught implementing some form non transparent data protocol they should be shot without hesitation or trial. Fuck 'em.

[Brian d marge]

you have five min of pure ogasmic pleasure to choose your next elected figure

choose carefully , they will remain in the halls of power until their dyin day

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/w_UrP5uyP70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

[bogan]

I have no issue at all with the FBI wanting to unlock or free up data so as long as they unlock their own data

The guy isn't meaning open access internet stuff, he means if they get the physical item PC/phone/etc they want to have a way to access the data. This makes sense to me because they should get a warrant to do so, in which case there is very strong suspicion already there. I don't read it as a push for ongoing surveilance or anything like that, data storage encryption is is different from transmitted data encryption.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h-A-41DTRw

Professor Antal Fekete (Austrian school of economics) on bubbles (commodity debt v sovereign debt): "The quality is going down and this can be ignored, because only the quantity of money, trying to jack up the quantity of money hoping this will prevent deflation, meaning falling commodity prices, but the central banks don't control how people spend the money. They can print as much as they want, but they cannot control how people spend it."


Do banks have the authority to print money now?



In a nutshell there's yer problem. Keep printing until it goes tits... if "we" don't care that things are getting more expensive and the social divides become wider, then nothing will change. The stupidity of those espousing that financial policy can achieve that which we "need" (what is it trying to achieve again?) is nothing more than short term thinking, and that's a FACT!

Fact is, 100,000 years, 5,000 years, 2,500 years are not usually time-lines associated with the phrase, short term :laugh:

"The use of barter-like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago, though there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[11] Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics and debt.[12][13] When barter did in fact occur, it was usually between either complete strangers or potential enemies.[14]

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The shekel was originally a unit of weight, and referred to a specific weight of barley, which was used as currency.[15] The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. Societies in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia used shell money – often, the shells of the cowry (Cypraea moneta L. or C. annulus L.). According to Herodotus, the Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and silver coins.[16] It is thought by modern scholars that these first stamped coins were minted around 650–600 BC.[17]"

[Brian d marge]

Does he have a NZ accent?

Oh well at least they are multi cultural

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4553.htm

Stephen

[yokel]

The guy isn't meaning open access internet stuff, he means if they get the physical item PC/phone/etc they want to have a way to access the data. This makes sense to me because they should get a warrant to do so, in which case there is very strong suspicion already there. I don't read it as a push for ongoing surveilance or anything like that, data storage encryption is is different from transmitted data encryption.


Do they really need more bullshit laws?? that on the back of what they say they want them for god knows what extra powers they would receive?

[bogan]

Do they really need more bullshit laws?? that on the back of what they say they want them for, who knows what extra powers they would receive?

I wouldn't call it a bullshit law if data legally obtained were used as a tool of justice. The bullshit here is all around the implementation of it.

[mashman]

Do banks have the authority to print money now?

Yes.



Fact is, 100,000 years, 5,000 years, 2,500 years are not usually time-lines associated with the phrase, short term :laugh:

"The use of barter-like methods may date back to at least 100,000 years ago, though there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[11] Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics and debt.[12][13] When barter did in fact occur, it was usually between either complete strangers or potential enemies.[14]

Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. The shekel was originally a unit of weight, and referred to a specific weight of barley, which was used as currency.[15] The first usage of the term came from Mesopotamia circa 3000 BC. Societies in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia used shell money – often, the shells of the cowry (Cypraea moneta L. or C. annulus L.). According to Herodotus, the Lydians were the first people to introduce the use of gold and silver coins.[16] It is thought by modern scholars that these first stamped coins were minted around 650–600 BC.[17]"

:rofl: things change... apart from the financial system that is.

I care not whether people barter or not as it's entirely their choice.

And yet here we are... debt up to the eyeballs, war, poverty, social unrest etc... all because Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. Call them side-effects iffen ye like, but it's seen it's day and it will change. With any thought we'll start heading towards an R.B.E. with any new financial policy, but alas, that thought is not forthcoming.

[yokel]

I wouldn't call it a bullshit law if data legally obtained were used as a tool of justice. The bullshit here is all around the implementation of it.

Ok the bullshit implementation of a bullshit law, Happy?
just because something is legal doesn't means it's right

[bogan]

Yes.

Example please? I suspect you are meaning Fractional Reserve Banking, rather than the creation of currency notes/coins.


Ok the bullshit implementation of a bullshit law, Happy?
just because something is legal doesn't means it's right

No, the law would be the implementation of the idea. The idea that under given circumstances pertaining to justice (ie, same conditions as per warrants to search premises') the authorities should have a way to access a suspects information. Before computer encryption this was a non issue as the information was accessible by said warrant; and has indeed been of great use. Now that things can be encrypted by default, it makes evidence gathering that much more difficult.

In my opinion it is the by default that is the issue here, ciphers and encryption has been around for a long long time for sensitive data, and always will be. But not only giving people the tool for doing that with the most mundane data, but by turning it on too, will hide a lot of things that stupid criminals would otherwise leave accessible and could be used as evidence to convict or prevent crimes.

[Ocean1]

And yet here we are... debt up to the eyeballs, war, poverty, social unrest etc... all because Many cultures around the world eventually developed the use of commodity money. Call them side-effects iffen ye like, but it's seen it's day and it will change. With any thought we'll start heading towards an R.B.E. with any new financial policy, but alas, that thought is not forthcoming.

I dunno where you are but in everyone else's world there's been less war, poverty and social unrest in direct proportion to the unprecedented success created by democratic capitalist economies.

So if you insist that there's a relationship between evel money and bad shit then I got news: No money = dark ages. Successful monetary economy = good times.

Let 'em roll.


And if you can't find that fact amongst your thoughts then you should probably stick to your fantasy world and let the grownups handle the real one.

[mashman]

Example please? I suspect you are meaning Fractional Reserve Banking, rather than the creation of currency notes/coins.


:facepalm: it's all money, it's plucked out of thin air. Digital money = cash money. There is no difference.

[bogan]

:facepalm: it's all money, it's plucked out of thin air. Digital money = cash money. There is no difference.

Fractional reserve banking is indeed different, as the fractional reserve target limits how much the money is leveraged (plucked out of thin air). For a fractional reserve of 20% you have a money multiplier of 5x across all banks, ie, 1$ of real money deposited can only ever be lent out to 5$ value. FRB is probably the part of the financial institution that has gotten the most carried away and courting of disaster. But interestingly, if we all cooperated, or if resources were plentiful, or any other W.B.E foundations were a reality; we could maintain a fractional reserve of <1% easily.

[mashman]

I dunno where you are but in everyone else's world there's been less war, poverty and social unrest in direct proportion to the unprecedented success created by democratic capitalist economies.

So if you insist that there's a relationship between evel money and bad shit then I got news: No money = dark ages. Successful monetary economy = good times.

Let 'em roll.


And if you can't find that fact amongst your thoughts then you should probably stick to your fantasy world and let the grownups handle the real one.

It's the success of the people you fuckin muppet.

Absofuckinlute propagandist bullshit, fuckin muppet.

It's not a fact you fuckin muppet... just the opinion of some scared old white man with an entitlement complex and shit for brains. Time for the kids to take over is this current array of shit is led by the grownups.

[mashman]

Fractional reserve banking is indeed different, as the fractional reserve target limits how much the money is leveraged (plucked out of thin air). For a fractional reserve of 20% you have a money multiplier of 5x across all banks, ie, 1$ of real money deposited can only ever be lent out to 5$ value. FRB is probably the part of the financial institution that has gotten the most carried away and courting of disaster. But interestingly, if we all cooperated, or if resources were plentiful, or any other W.B.E foundations were a reality; we could maintain a fractional reserve of <1% easily.

Resources are plentiful, they always have been and always will be, tis merely the logistics of money that causes scarcity. So the way money is printed means that it isn't money?

[Scuba_Steve]

I dunno where you are but in everyone else's world there's been less war, poverty and social unrest in direct proportion to the unprecedented success created by democratic capitalist economies.

So if you insist that there's a relationship between evel money and bad shit then I got news: No money = dark ages. Successful monetary economy = good times.

Let 'em roll.


And if you can't find that fact amongst your thoughts then you should probably stick to your fantasy world and let the grownups handle the real one.

I'm sorry, but that right there ^ sounds like something sourced from Fox News

[bogan]

Resources are plentiful, they always have been and always will be, tis merely the logistics of money that causes scarcity. So the way money is printed means that it isn't money?

Land, oils, fresh water, etc are all finite things, population continues to grow so the inescapable conclusion is that the resources earth can provide will not always be plentiful.

No, money is representative of wealth, always has and always will be. This is why banks can only turn 1$ into a maximum value as defined by the fractional reserve; and because it is not created from nothing it has value. You speak of situations like Zimbabwe's hyperinflation where money was indeed created out of nothing (by the govt, not the banks, cos they can't do that); it didn't go well for them at all. To equate that with our banks is very stupid.

[mashman]

Land, oils, fresh water, etc are all finite things, population continues to grow so the inescapable conclusion is that the resources earth can provide will not always be plentiful.

No, money is representative of wealth, always has and always will be. This is why banks can only turn 1$ into a maximum value as defined by the fractional reserve; and because it is not created from nothing it has value. You speak of situations like Zimbabwe's hyperinflation where money was indeed created out of nothing (by the govt, not the banks, cos they can't do that); it didn't go well for them at all. To equate that with our banks is very stupid.

I agree, and yet here we are wasting them willy nilly as if they are infinite. We can do better.

Money is also a weapon and limits human potential, always has been always will be. Sure, hyperinflation happens purely because money is printed without anything backing it :facepalm:. A bank is a bank, they print money out of nothing.

[Ocean1]

It's the success of the people you fuckin muppet.

Absofuckinlute propagandist bullshit, fuckin muppet.

It's not a fact you fuckin muppet... just the opinion of some scared old white man with an entitlement complex and shit for brains. Time for the kids to take over is this current array of shit is led by the grownups.


I'm sorry, but that right there ^ sounds like something sourced from Fox News

And if you have a problem with that then I suggest you go find some actual numbers rather than fall in for the local "revolutionist" circle jerk.

'Cause you're wrong.

I'll just let Mr Ridley show you where to look. Again. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader's-digest.aspx

1. We're better off now

Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period.

2. Urban living is a good thing

City dwellers take up less space, use less energy, and have less impact on natural ecosystems than country dwellers. The world's cities now contain over half its people, but they occupy less than 3 percent of its land area. Urban growth may disgust environmentalists, but living in the country is not the best way to care for the earth. The best thing we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers.

3. Poverty is nose-diving

The rich get richer, but the poor do even better. Between 1980 and 2000, the poor doubled their consumption. The Chinese are ten times richer and live about 25 years longer than they did 50 years ago. Nigerians are twice as rich and live nine more years. The percentage of the world's people living in absolute poverty has dropped by over half. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500.

4. The important stuff costs less

One reason we are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than ever before is that the four most basic human needs-food, clothing, fuel, and shelter-have grown markedly cheaper. Take one example: In 1800, a candle providing one hour's light cost six hours' work. In the 1880s, the same light from a kerosene lamp took 15 minutes' work to pay for. In 1950, it was eight seconds. Today, it's half a second. In these terms, we are 43,200 times better off than in 1800.

5. The environment is better than you think

In the United States, rivers, lakes, seas, and air are getting cleaner all the time. A car today emits less pollution traveling at full speed than a parked car did from leaks in 1970.

6. Shopping fuels innovation



Even allowing for the many people who still live in abject poverty, our own generation has access to more calories, watts, horsepower, gigabytes, megahertz, square feet, air miles, food per acre, miles per gallon, and, of course, money than any who lived before us. This will continue as long as we use these things to make other things. The more we specialize and exchange, the better off we'll be.

7. Global trade enriches our lives

By 9 a.m., I have shaved with an American razor, eaten bread made with French wheat and spread with New Zealand butter and Spanish marmalade, brewed tea from Sri Lanka, dressed in clothes made from Indian cotton and Australian wool, put on shoes of Chinese leather and Malaysian rubber, and read a newspaper printed on Finnish paper with Chinese ink. I have consumed minuscule fractions of the productive labor of hundreds of people. This is the magic of trade and specialization. Self-sufficiency is poverty.

8. More farm production = more wilderness

While world population has increased more than fourfold since 1900, other things have increased, too-the area of crops by 30 percent, harvests by 600 percent. At the same time, more than two billion acres of "secondary" tropical forest are now regrowing since farmers left them to head for cities, and it is already rich in biodiversity. In fact, I will make an outrageous prediction: The world will feed itself to a higher and higher standard throughout this century without plowing any new land.

9. The good old days weren't

Some people argue that in the past there was a simplicity, tranquillity, sociability, and spirituality that's now been lost. This rose-tinted nostalgia is generally confined to the wealthy. It's easier to wax elegiac for the life of a pioneer when you don't have to use an outhouse. The biggest-ever experiment in back-to-the-land hippie lifestyle is now known as the Dark Ages.

10. Population growth is not a threat



Although the world population is growing, the rate of increase has been falling for 50 years. Across the globe, national birth rates are lower now than in 1960, and in the less developed world, the birth rate has approximately halved. This is happening despite people living longer and infant-mortality rates dropping. According to an estimate from the United Nations, population will start falling once it peaks at 9.2 billion in 2075-so there is every prospect of feeding the world forever. After all, there are already seven billion people on earth, and they are eating better and better every decade.

11. Oil is not running out

In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the world, and in the 20 years that followed, the world used 600 billion.

So by 1990, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels. Instead, they amounted to 900 billion-not counting tar sands and oil shale that between them contain about 20 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Oil, coal, and gas are finite, but they will last for decades, perhaps centuries, and people will find alternatives long before they run out.

12. We are the luckiest generation

This generation has experienced more peace, freedom, leisure time, education, medicine, and travel than any in history. Yet it laps up gloom at every opportunity. Consumers do not celebrate their wonderful field of choice and, according to psychologists, say they are "overwhelmed." When I go to my local superstore, I do not see people driven to misery by the impossibility of choice. I see people choosing.

13. Storms are not getting worse



Not at all. While the climate warmed slightly last century, the incidence of hurricanes and cyclones fell. Since the 1920s, the global annual death rate from weather-related natural disasters (that is, the proportion of the world's population killed rather than simply the overall number) has declined by a staggering 99 percent.

The killing power of hurricanes depends more on wealth than on wind speed. A big hurricane struck the well-prepared Yucatán in Mexico in 2007 and killed nobody. A similar storm struck impoverished Burma the next year and killed 200,000. The best defenses against disaster are prosperity and freedom.

14. Great ideas keep coming

The more we prosper, the more we can prosper. The more we invent, the more inventions become possible. The world of things is often subject to diminishing returns. The world of ideas is not: The ever-increasing exchange of ideas causes the ever-increasing rate of innovation in the modern world. There isn't even a theoretical possibility of exhausting our supply of ideas, discoveries, and inventions.

15. We can solve all our problems

If you say the world will go on getting better, you are considered mad. If you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect the Nobel Peace Prize. Bookshops groan with pessimism; airwaves are crammed with doom. I cannot recall a time when I was not being told by somebody that the world could survive only if it abandoned economic growth. But the world will not continue as it is. The human race has become a problem-solving machine: It solves those problems by changing its ways. The real danger comes from slowing change.

16. This depression is not depressing

The Great Depression of the 1930s was just a dip in the upward slope of human living standards. By 1939, even the worst-affected countries, America and Germany, were richer than they'd been in 1930. All sorts of new products and industries were born during the Depression. So growth will resume unless prevented by wrong policies. Someone, somewhere, is tweaking a piece of software, testing a new material, or transferring the gene that will make life easier or more fun.

17. Optimists are right

For 200 years, pessimists have had all the headlines-even though optimists have far more often been right. There is immense vested interest in pessimism. No charity ever raised money by saying things are getting better. No journalist ever got the front page writing a story about how disaster was now less likely. Pressure groups and their customers in the media search even the most cheerful statistics for glimmers of doom. Don't be browbeaten-be right!

[yokel]

Land, oils, fresh water, etc are all finite things, population continues to grow so the inescapable conclusion is that the resources earth can provide will not always be plentiful.

No, money is representative of wealth, always has and always will be. This is why banks can only turn 1$ into a maximum value as defined by the fractional reserve; and because it is not created from nothing it has value. You speak of situations like Zimbabwe's hyperinflation where money was indeed created out of nothing (by the govt, not the banks, cos they can't do that); it didn't go well for them at all. To equate that with our banks is very stupid.

Money is energy, That wealth being the energy output or resources from people efforts the sun eg tress, crops and what comes out of the ground.

what's printed on money is what it represents , numbers symbols and images

[mashman]

And if you have a problem with that then I suggest you go find some actual numbers rather than fall in for the local "revolutionist" circle jerk.

'Cause you're wrong.

I'll just let Mr Ridley show you where to look. Again. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader's-digest.aspx

1. We're better off now

Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period.

2. Urban living is a good thing

City dwellers take up less space, use less energy, and have less impact on natural ecosystems than country dwellers. The world's cities now contain over half its people, but they occupy less than 3 percent of its land area. Urban growth may disgust environmentalists, but living in the country is not the best way to care for the earth. The best thing we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers.

3. Poverty is nose-diving

The rich get richer, but the poor do even better. Between 1980 and 2000, the poor doubled their consumption. The Chinese are ten times richer and live about 25 years longer than they did 50 years ago. Nigerians are twice as rich and live nine more years. The percentage of the world's people living in absolute poverty has dropped by over half. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500.

4. The important stuff costs less

One reason we are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than ever before is that the four most basic human needs-food, clothing, fuel, and shelter-have grown markedly cheaper. Take one example: In 1800, a candle providing one hour's light cost six hours' work. In the 1880s, the same light from a kerosene lamp took 15 minutes' work to pay for. In 1950, it was eight seconds. Today, it's half a second. In these terms, we are 43,200 times better off than in 1800.

5. The environment is better than you think

In the United States, rivers, lakes, seas, and air are getting cleaner all the time. A car today emits less pollution traveling at full speed than a parked car did from leaks in 1970.

6. Shopping fuels innovation



Even allowing for the many people who still live in abject poverty, our own generation has access to more calories, watts, horsepower, gigabytes, megahertz, square feet, air miles, food per acre, miles per gallon, and, of course, money than any who lived before us. This will continue as long as we use these things to make other things. The more we specialize and exchange, the better off we'll be.

7. Global trade enriches our lives

By 9 a.m., I have shaved with an American razor, eaten bread made with French wheat and spread with New Zealand butter and Spanish marmalade, brewed tea from Sri Lanka, dressed in clothes made from Indian cotton and Australian wool, put on shoes of Chinese leather and Malaysian rubber, and read a newspaper printed on Finnish paper with Chinese ink. I have consumed minuscule fractions of the productive labor of hundreds of people. This is the magic of trade and specialization. Self-sufficiency is poverty.

8. More farm production = more wilderness

While world population has increased more than fourfold since 1900, other things have increased, too-the area of crops by 30 percent, harvests by 600 percent. At the same time, more than two billion acres of "secondary" tropical forest are now regrowing since farmers left them to head for cities, and it is already rich in biodiversity. In fact, I will make an outrageous prediction: The world will feed itself to a higher and higher standard throughout this century without plowing any new land.

9. The good old days weren't

Some people argue that in the past there was a simplicity, tranquillity, sociability, and spirituality that's now been lost. This rose-tinted nostalgia is generally confined to the wealthy. It's easier to wax elegiac for the life of a pioneer when you don't have to use an outhouse. The biggest-ever experiment in back-to-the-land hippie lifestyle is now known as the Dark Ages.

10. Population growth is not a threat



Although the world population is growing, the rate of increase has been falling for 50 years. Across the globe, national birth rates are lower now than in 1960, and in the less developed world, the birth rate has approximately halved. This is happening despite people living longer and infant-mortality rates dropping. According to an estimate from the United Nations, population will start falling once it peaks at 9.2 billion in 2075-so there is every prospect of feeding the world forever. After all, there are already seven billion people on earth, and they are eating better and better every decade.

11. Oil is not running out

In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the world, and in the 20 years that followed, the world used 600 billion.

So by 1990, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels. Instead, they amounted to 900 billion-not counting tar sands and oil shale that between them contain about 20 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Oil, coal, and gas are finite, but they will last for decades, perhaps centuries, and people will find alternatives long before they run out.

12. We are the luckiest generation

This generation has experienced more peace, freedom, leisure time, education, medicine, and travel than any in history. Yet it laps up gloom at every opportunity. Consumers do not celebrate their wonderful field of choice and, according to psychologists, say they are "overwhelmed." When I go to my local superstore, I do not see people driven to misery by the impossibility of choice. I see people choosing.

13. Storms are not getting worse



Not at all. While the climate warmed slightly last century, the incidence of hurricanes and cyclones fell. Since the 1920s, the global annual death rate from weather-related natural disasters (that is, the proportion of the world's population killed rather than simply the overall number) has declined by a staggering 99 percent.

The killing power of hurricanes depends more on wealth than on wind speed. A big hurricane struck the well-prepared Yucat�n in Mexico in 2007 and killed nobody. A similar storm struck impoverished Burma the next year and killed 200,000. The best defenses against disaster are prosperity and freedom.

14. Great ideas keep coming

The more we prosper, the more we can prosper. The more we invent, the more inventions become possible. The world of things is often subject to diminishing returns. The world of ideas is not: The ever-increasing exchange of ideas causes the ever-increasing rate of innovation in the modern world. There isn't even a theoretical possibility of exhausting our supply of ideas, discoveries, and inventions.

15. We can solve all our problems

If you say the world will go on getting better, you are considered mad. If you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect the Nobel Peace Prize. Bookshops groan with pessimism; airwaves are crammed with doom. I cannot recall a time when I was not being told by somebody that the world could survive only if it abandoned economic growth. But the world will not continue as it is. The human race has become a problem-solving machine: It solves those problems by changing its ways. The real danger comes from slowing change.

16. This depression is not depressing

The Great Depression of the 1930s was just a dip in the upward slope of human living standards. By 1939, even the worst-affected countries, America and Germany, were richer than they'd been in 1930. All sorts of new products and industries were born during the Depression. So growth will resume unless prevented by wrong policies. Someone, somewhere, is tweaking a piece of software, testing a new material, or transferring the gene that will make life easier or more fun.

17. Optimists are right

For 200 years, pessimists have had all the headlines-even though optimists have far more often been right. There is immense vested interest in pessimism. No charity ever raised money by saying things are getting better. No journalist ever got the front page writing a story about how disaster was now less likely. Pressure groups and their customers in the media search even the most cheerful statistics for glimmers of doom. Don't be browbeaten-be right!

As I said, it's the success of the people. I'm sure if I hunted hard enough I could find some commentary using stats that would say the opposite and you'd call bullshit. There has been plenty of figures floating around recently that state that our economy is in a worse state than it was 100 years ago, with reports being written on record levels of poverty etc... so telling me that some scared old white man can find figures that, as a ratio of good v bad, shows that we're doing ok won't not wash as it proves that we are letting record numbers of people suffer whilst thinking happy happy thoughts. Whatever appeases you dude.

[Brian d marge]

Money is energy, That wealth being the energy output or resources from people efforts the sun eg tress, crops and what comes out of the ground.

what's printed on money is what it represents , numbers symbols and images
Subject to the laws of entropy

[Scuba_Steve]

And if you have a problem with that then I suggest you go find some actual numbers rather than fall in for the local "revolutionist" circle jerk.

---

A lot of straw-man arguments

That list appeared to be missing your "war decreasing" don't worry I have a graph here from the University of Warwick and Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University

http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/wargraph.jpg

As for poverty I notice they decide to look at candle vs lightbulb rather than something useful like bread, milk, even water in some places... Anyways I was more about the war comment, to think war has decreased as money has increased is just fucking stupid to say the least, hell the "war economy" is one of the most profitable & stable

[bogan]

I agree, and yet here we are wasting them willy nilly as if they are infinite. We can do better.

Money is also a weapon and limits human potential, always has been always will be. Sure, hyperinflation happens purely because money is printed without anything backing it :facepalm:. A bank is a bank, they print money out of nothing.

Wastage is a different topic, usage is something an R.B.E is unlikely to lower; wasteage perhaps, but the number of people sacrificing their resources they have worked for for an iphone 6 suggests the wastage is in the mindset, not the financial cost.

Yet it is also a tool doing good, and increasing human potential. It is how you choose to see it :yes: Me, I'm a positive bloke, making the best of the situation, no sense dragging myself down by a negative view of the world.

A bank is a bank, they cannot print money at all, and they cannot create money from nothing; stop being willfully ignorant mashy.

[Brian d marge]

That list appeared to be missing your "war decreasing" don't worry I have a graph here from the University of Warwick and Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University

http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/wargraph.jpg

As for poverty I notice they decide to look at candle vs lightbulb rather than something useful like bread, milk, even water in some places... Anyways I was more about the war comment, to think war has decreased as money has increased is just fucking stupid to say the least, hell the "war economy" is one of the most profitable & stable
Hahahahaha great graph must photo copy that to show her my performance behind closed doors

[bogan]

There has been plenty of figures floating around recently that state that our economy is in a worse state than it was 100 years ago, with reports being written on record levels of poverty etc...

That'll be a relative measure though, those in poverty today have it better than the ruling class of 100 years ago.

[Brian d marge]

That'll be a relative measure though, those in poverty today have it better than the ruling class of 100 years ago.
I present

Shortland street


Destroying the social fabric since after 100 years ago

[Brian d marge]

And if you have a problem with that then I suggest you go find some actual numbers rather than fall in for the local "revolutionist" circle jerk.

'Cause you're wrong.

I'll just let Mr Ridley show you where to look. Again. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader's-digest.aspx

1. We're better off now

Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period.

2. Urban living is a good thing

City dwellers take up less space, use less energy, and have less impact on natural ecosystems than country dwellers. The world's cities now contain over half its people, but they occupy less than 3 percent of its land area. Urban growth may disgust environmentalists, but living in the country is not the best way to care for the earth. The best thing we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers.

3. Poverty is nose-diving

The rich get richer, but the poor do even better. Between 1980 and 2000, the poor doubled their consumption. The Chinese are ten times richer and live about 25 years longer than they did 50 years ago. Nigerians are twice as rich and live nine more years. The percentage of the world's people living in absolute poverty has dropped by over half. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500.

4. The important stuff costs less

One reason we are richer, healthier, taller, cleverer, longer-lived, and freer than ever before is that the four most basic human needs-food, clothing, fuel, and shelter-have grown markedly cheaper. Take one example: In 1800, a candle providing one hour's light cost six hours' work. In the 1880s, the same light from a kerosene lamp took 15 minutes' work to pay for. In 1950, it was eight seconds. Today, it's half a second. In these terms, we are 43,200 times better off than in 1800.

5. The environment is better than you think

In the United States, rivers, lakes, seas, and air are getting cleaner all the time. A car today emits less pollution traveling at full speed than a parked car did from leaks in 1970.

6. Shopping fuels innovation



Even allowing for the many people who still live in abject poverty, our own generation has access to more calories, watts, horsepower, gigabytes, megahertz, square feet, air miles, food per acre, miles per gallon, and, of course, money than any who lived before us. This will continue as long as we use these things to make other things. The more we specialize and exchange, the better off we'll be.

7. Global trade enriches our lives

By 9 a.m., I have shaved with an American razor, eaten bread made with French wheat and spread with New Zealand butter and Spanish marmalade, brewed tea from Sri Lanka, dressed in clothes made from Indian cotton and Australian wool, put on shoes of Chinese leather and Malaysian rubber, and read a newspaper printed on Finnish paper with Chinese ink. I have consumed minuscule fractions of the productive labor of hundreds of people. This is the magic of trade and specialization. Self-sufficiency is poverty.

8. More farm production = more wilderness

While world population has increased more than fourfold since 1900, other things have increased, too-the area of crops by 30 percent, harvests by 600 percent. At the same time, more than two billion acres of "secondary" tropical forest are now regrowing since farmers left them to head for cities, and it is already rich in biodiversity. In fact, I will make an outrageous prediction: The world will feed itself to a higher and higher standard throughout this century without plowing any new land.

9. The good old days weren't

Some people argue that in the past there was a simplicity, tranquillity, sociability, and spirituality that's now been lost. This rose-tinted nostalgia is generally confined to the wealthy. It's easier to wax elegiac for the life of a pioneer when you don't have to use an outhouse. The biggest-ever experiment in back-to-the-land hippie lifestyle is now known as the Dark Ages.

10. Population growth is not a threat



Although the world population is growing, the rate of increase has been falling for 50 years. Across the globe, national birth rates are lower now than in 1960, and in the less developed world, the birth rate has approximately halved. This is happening despite people living longer and infant-mortality rates dropping. According to an estimate from the United Nations, population will start falling once it peaks at 9.2 billion in 2075-so there is every prospect of feeding the world forever. After all, there are already seven billion people on earth, and they are eating better and better every decade.

11. Oil is not running out

In 1970, there were 550 billion barrels of oil reserves in the world, and in the 20 years that followed, the world used 600 billion.

So by 1990, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels. Instead, they amounted to 900 billion-not counting tar sands and oil shale that between them contain about 20 times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. Oil, coal, and gas are finite, but they will last for decades, perhaps centuries, and people will find alternatives long before they run out.

12. We are the luckiest generation

This generation has experienced more peace, freedom, leisure time, education, medicine, and travel than any in history. Yet it laps up gloom at every opportunity. Consumers do not celebrate their wonderful field of choice and, according to psychologists, say they are "overwhelmed." When I go to my local superstore, I do not see people driven to misery by the impossibility of choice. I see people choosing.

13. Storms are not getting worse



Not at all. While the climate warmed slightly last century, the incidence of hurricanes and cyclones fell. Since the 1920s, the global annual death rate from weather-related natural disasters (that is, the proportion of the world's population killed rather than simply the overall number) has declined by a staggering 99 percent.

The killing power of hurricanes depends more on wealth than on wind speed. A big hurricane struck the well-prepared Yucatán in Mexico in 2007 and killed nobody. A similar storm struck impoverished Burma the next year and killed 200,000. The best defenses against disaster are prosperity and freedom.

14. Great ideas keep coming

The more we prosper, the more we can prosper. The more we invent, the more inventions become possible. The world of things is often subject to diminishing returns. The world of ideas is not: The ever-increasing exchange of ideas causes the ever-increasing rate of innovation in the modern world. There isn't even a theoretical possibility of exhausting our supply of ideas, discoveries, and inventions.

15. We can solve all our problems

If you say the world will go on getting better, you are considered mad. If you say catastrophe is imminent, you may expect the Nobel Peace Prize. Bookshops groan with pessimism; airwaves are crammed with doom. I cannot recall a time when I was not being told by somebody that the world could survive only if it abandoned economic growth. But the world will not continue as it is. The human race has become a problem-solving machine: It solves those problems by changing its ways. The real danger comes from slowing change.

16. This depression is not depressing

The Great Depression of the 1930s was just a dip in the upward slope of human living standards. By 1939, even the worst-affected countries, America and Germany, were richer than they'd been in 1930. All sorts of new products and industries were born during the Depression. So growth will resume unless prevented by wrong policies. Someone, somewhere, is tweaking a piece of software, testing a new material, or transferring the gene that will make life easier or more fun.

17. Optimists are right

For 200 years, pessimists have had all the headlines-even though optimists have far more often been right. There is immense vested interest in pessimism. No charity ever raised money by saying things are getting better. No journalist ever got the front page writing a story about how disaster was now less likely. Pressure groups and their customers in the media search even the most cheerful statistics for glimmers of doom. Don't be browbeaten-be right!



Hahahahaa thats the biggest load of bollox Ive read , since the last time I posted ....


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SbLDI5lNdRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Wastage is a different topic, usage is something an R.B.E is unlikely to lower; wasteage perhaps, but the number of people sacrificing their resources they have worked for for an iphone 6 suggests the wastage is in the mindset, not the financial cost.

Yet it is also a tool doing good, and increasing human potential. It is how you choose to see it :yes: Me, I'm a positive bloke, making the best of the situation, no sense dragging myself down by a negative view of the world.

A bank is a bank, they cannot print money at all, and they cannot create money from nothing; stop being willfully ignorant mashy.

the banks do indeed print money , AND destroy money all at a stroke of a key

Banke moon has gone on record and I have posted it here

Sorry but they do ,,,,,,,,

The physical money , less than 3 percent , is printed at the by the government , at the place where they print money

the rest is all make believe ...........

Stephen

[Akzle]

And if you have a problem with that then I suggest you go find some actual numbers rather than fall in for the local "revolutionist" circle jerk.

'Cause you're wrong.

((wall-o-text removed, can i has lolipop, gremlord?))

that is horseshit. aside from many factual inaccuracies, that's as "rose-tinted" and biased as much of the shit on the other side of the argument.

[Akzle]

A bank is a bank, they cannot print money at all, and they cannot create money from nothing; stop being willfully ignorant mashy.

sorry. run that one past me again:
if you get one dollar, and then you jew-gold it, and you come out with five, how is that not making money up??

b) money doesn't exist and has no value beyond what people are willing to do for it, in many cases, horrendous shit. in "civilised" whitey land, that involves giving over your carcass to a corporation for ~60% of your waking* useful adult life.

*if, in fact the mind-numb zombie like state that corporate types exist in can be considered "awake", that is...

[yokel]

sorry. run that one past me again:
if you get one dollar, and then you jew-gold it, and you come out with five, how is that not making money up??

b) money doesn't exist and has no value beyond what people are willing to do for it, in many cases, horrendous shit. in "civilised" whitey land, that involves giving over your carcass to a corporation for ~60% of your waking* useful adult life.

*if, in fact the mind-numb zombie like state that corporate types exist in can be considered "awake", that is...

thats right, money is just a IOU from some other sucker.
right now they are printing more and have too many "IOU's" in circulation than the suckers can repay

[bogan]

the banks do indeed print money , AND destroy money all at a stroke of a key

Banke moon has gone on record and I have posted it here

Sorry but they do ,,,,,,,,

The physical money , less than 3 percent , is printed at the by the government , at the place where they print money

the rest is all make believe ...........

Stephen

Exactly, the rest is all based on FRB or otherwise has wealth behind it and requisite to its 'creation'.


sorry. run that one past me again:
if you get one dollar, and then you jew-gold it, and you come out with five, how is that not making money up??

Because it has to be backed by that original $1. Were it coming out of thin air, that $1 would not be needed and the banks could just get their $5 from absolutely nothing at all.

[mashman]

Wastage is a different topic, usage is something an R.B.E is unlikely to lower; wasteage perhaps, but the number of people sacrificing their resources they have worked for for an iphone 6 suggests the wastage is in the mindset, not the financial cost.

Yet it is also a tool doing good, and increasing human potential. It is how you choose to see it :yes: Me, I'm a positive bloke, making the best of the situation, no sense dragging myself down by a negative view of the world.

A bank is a bank, they cannot print money at all, and they cannot create money from nothing; stop being willfully ignorant mashy.

An R.B.E. also may not lower usage, but it may redirect that usage towards something useful. I agree that there is a problem with the mindset, but the money is driving that mindset coz if the money weren't there, neither would that mindset be.

Nope, people are the ones doing good, the money does fuck all but limit that which people can accomplish. Me, I'm a positive bloke, making the best of the situation, no sense dragging myself down by a negative view of the world... however I won't shove my head up my arse and pretend that just because I'm ok that no one outside of my monkey sphere exists or indeed suffers because of the financial system. As I said earlier, resources are abundant and only money is stopping resources getting to people who need them.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa. According to one of the chief economists in NZ, that's exactly what banks do. I believe his words were, "It's economics 101". Looks like you've built your knowledge base upon lies, deceit and propaganda... worse yet you regurgitate it verbatim and call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant. Turns out you're a fuckin muppet.

[mashman]

That'll be a relative measure though, those in poverty today have it better than the ruling class of 100 years ago.

Is that seasonally adjusted?

[bogan]

An R.B.E. also may not lower usage, but it may redirect that usage towards something useful. I agree that there is a problem with the mindset, but the money is driving that mindset coz if the money weren't there, neither would that mindset be.

Nope, people are the ones doing good, the money does fuck all but limit that which people can accomplish. Me, I'm a positive bloke, making the best of the situation, no sense dragging myself down by a negative view of the world... however I won't shove my head up my arse and pretend that just because I'm ok that no one outside of my monkey sphere exists or indeed suffers because of the financial system. As I said earlier, resources are abundant and only money is stopping resources getting to people who need them.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa. According to one of the chief economists in NZ, that's exactly what banks do. I believe his words were, "It's economics 101". Looks like you've built your knowledge base upon lies, deceit and propaganda... worse yet you regurgitate it verbatim and call anyone who disagrees with you ignorant. Turns out you're a fuckin muppet.

Or is the mindset driving the money? Why are the fractional reserves set so low? because people want to borrow to spend, were the mindset otherwise they would not need to be that low and the economy would be safer. You simply can't see past you blind hatred of money because of how it limits you, to look at in objective terms; money ensures some people do anything at all, that is not a limit. You clearly have a negative view of the world (thread title be the example) and get quite ranty and illogical here, get some objectivity, and get some happiness...

They don't print it, and it has to be backed by the fractional reserve. So they can turn $1 into 5, so can I, it does take me a little longer, but on the other hand there is no reserve for me so I can keep turning that $1 into an extra 5 day in, day out. If you had an education I'd be inclined to look into your claims, but as it is, you're just misinterpreting things to ensure money comes out looking bad in your own mind; pretty negative mindset that. Newsflash though, FRB already looks bad, and if you were smart you could focus on the actual flaws instead of ranting about how banks print money :rolleyes:


Is that seasonally adjusted?

Yes.

[mashman]

Or is the mindset driving the money? Why are the fractional reserves set so low? because people want to borrow to spend, were the mindset otherwise they would not need to be that low and the economy would be safer. You simply can't see past you blind hatred of money because of how it limits you, to look at in objective terms; money ensures some people do anything at all, that is not a limit. You clearly have a negative view of the world (thread title be the example) and get quite ranty and illogical here, get some objectivity, and get some happiness...

They don't print it, and it has to be backed by the fractional reserve. So they can turn $1 into 5, so can I, it does take me a little longer, but on the other hand there is no reserve for me so I can keep turning that $1 into an extra 5 day in, day out. If you had an education I'd be inclined to look into your claims, but as it is, you're just misinterpreting things to ensure money comes out looking bad in your own mind; pretty negative mindset that. Newsflash though, FRB already looks bad, and if you were smart you could focus on the actual flaws instead of ranting about how banks print money :rolleyes:

Yes.

I'm most definitely going for money driving behaviour, because if that money didn't exist, neither would the behaviour... well certainly not at the levels we currently know. I can't see past what? The only reason I want money is so that I can make an attempt and rendering it obsolete, aha, ironing or what eh. I don't hate money and I'm certainly not blind (coz I know where it comes from and you don't :bleh:) and have looked at it as objectively as is possible and see it as damaging the future of mankind. So yet again I say that I'm not looking at things from a negative perspective and so you decide that you know better. :killingme, so you're going to persist in telling me how I view things huh? In which case you're fooling yourself, bigtime :yes:

:facepalm:, they do print it, or are you calling one of NZ's chief economists and the imf liars? Actually that would fit with your modus operandi telling others what they think and what they should believe... well trying to... but you'll need an ounce of credibility first and that's something that you seem to be lacking. No rant there, just stating the facts as you tell me I'm negative when I'm not, and you persist in that vein by stating that economists and the imf are full of shit. Dude, you may want to get that projection looked at or at the very least upgrade your logic engine to something that is this side of the 60's... that's this side of the 1460's to be clear. Economics 101 baby, you've just failed it... and using your yard stick that means that you have absolutely zero credibility when discussing matters of the financial system... although I'm sure you'll ream of a string of caveats to dig yourself out of your own hole.

Blaming me for your lack of knowledge is not my problem. Blaming me for your lack of logic isn't either. And then telling me what I need to focus on, WTF :killingme? Why do I need to focus on the flaws (tsk tsk such negativity) when I can focus on a solution that can do everything the financial system can and more.

[Scuba_Steve]

Because it has to be backed by that original $1. Were it coming out of thin air, that $1 would not be needed and the banks could just get their $5 from absolutely nothing at all.

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

[mashman]

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

Cannot spread etc...

[Akzle]

thats right, money is just a IOU from some other sucker.
right now they are printing more and have too many "IOU's" in circulation than the suckers can repay
nooo, actually you (the borrower) 're the sucker. because before you give any sign(of your n)ature (such as that you are going to act as a corporation for profit) that money doesn't exist.
you think they're lending you something they have? fuck no. they create the money, under a capitus diminutio name, with that sign. if you don't sign the paper, that money doesn't exist.
you're right, in that it's a big ass IOU, and that cash is also (being "promissory" notes: that is, a promise to pay...... if/when money ever exists) but you're wrong in that you're not actually borrowing anything off anyone, you're inventing money, like magic, or jellybeans. just need that magic SURNAME, FIRST, MIDDLE, a date of incorporation and a sign...



Because it has to be backed by that original $1. Were it coming out of thin air, that $1 would not be needed and the banks could just get their $5 from absolutely nothing at all.
let me just say that you're a dumb fuck, then follow by re-iterating
:

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

this guy, this guy man.

[Akzle]

why bogan, do you cling so hard to the tenuous beliefs you hold? why do you struggle to think outside the box you've been put in? are you really old, and white? are you scared, bogan?

the boogey man's coming for you.

[yokel]

nooo, actually you (the borrower) 're the sucker. because before you give any sign(of your n)ature (such as that you are going to act as a corporation for profit) that money doesn't exist.
you think they're lending you something they have? fuck no. they create the money, under a capitus diminutio name, with that sign. if you don't sign the paper, that money doesn't exist.

You would be assuming I have any kind of personal debt, which I don't.
No car loan or student loan.
My assets far outweigh my debts

[oldrider]

You would be assuming I have any kind of personal debt, which I don't.
No car loan or student loan.
My assets far outweigh my debts

Are you saying that you don't hold a credit card either? Unusual today! ... gives banks opportunity to create money in your name! :rolleyes:

[bogan]

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC

Actually that is taken into account, what you have forgotten to take into account is the fractional reserve. At each bank deposit/lending transaction 20% (from example) must be held at the bank. Do the sums on the $1 being given to the bank, with 20c kept and 80c lent out, then that 80c coming back and 64c lent out again... You totals will be $4 lent out and $1 kept by the bank, hence the money multiplier of 5; and simply backing up my point that how much money a bank can lend out is proportional to the money it has, and thus is not creating it out of nothing.


Cannot spread etc...


let me just say that you're a dumb fuck, then follow by re-iterating

Like I've said many times, you guys need to get an education; Scuba is demonstrably wrong, and your mindless agreement with him merely shows your ignorance and bias.


I'm most definitely going for money driving behaviour, because if that money didn't exist, neither would the behaviour... well certainly not at the levels we currently know. I can't see past what? The only reason I want money is so that I can make an attempt and rendering it obsolete, aha, ironing or what eh. I don't hate money and I'm certainly not blind (coz I know where it comes from and you don't :bleh:) and have looked at it as objectively as is possible and see it as damaging the future of mankind. So yet again I say that I'm not looking at things from a negative perspective and so you decide that you know better. :killingme, so you're going to persist in telling me how I view things huh? In which case you're fooling yourself, bigtime :yes:

:facepalm:, they do print it, or are you calling one of NZ's chief economists and the imf liars? Actually that would fit with your modus operandi telling others what they think and what they should believe... well trying to... but you'll need an ounce of credibility first and that's something that you seem to be lacking. No rant there, just stating the facts as you tell me I'm negative when I'm not, and you persist in that vein by stating that economists and the imf are full of shit. Dude, you may want to get that projection looked at or at the very least upgrade your logic engine to something that is this side of the 60's... that's this side of the 1460's to be clear. Economics 101 baby, you've just failed it... and using your yard stick that means that you have absolutely zero credibility when discussing matters of the financial system... although I'm sure you'll ream of a string of caveats to dig yourself out of your own hole.

Blaming me for your lack of knowledge is not my problem. Blaming me for your lack of logic isn't either. And then telling me what I need to focus on, WTF :killingme? Why do I need to focus on the flaws (tsk tsk such negativity) when I can focus on a solution that can do everything the financial system can and more.

Well that was a whole lot of negativistic claptrap, hope you feel better for venting, cos it achieved fuck all else.

[mashman]

Like I've said many times, you guys need to get an education; Scuba is demonstrably wrong, and your mindless agreement with him merely shows your ignorance and bias.

Well that was a whole lot of negativistic claptrap, hope you feel better for venting, cos it achieved fuck all else.

Yet you can't debunk what he has said, just straight for the ad hominems... choice bro.

No it isn't... I thought we'd made that clear. I know why it achieved nothing and that it might actually achieve nothing, but I'm optimistic so post anyway in the hope that you'll grow a pair and man up.


If you had an education I'd be inclined to look into your claims

You deny truth because you cannot look past where the information comes from. I'm flattered that I can affect you in such a way... although it's pretty pathetic really and so closed minded it renders every stance you take completely subjective, and such ironing coming from a so called self-professed objective person. Now go grab yer security blankie and we'll say no more about scared you truly are.

[mashman]

My assets far outweigh my debts

Are you sure those assets are yours? I'm betting that the "authorities" could remove every single one of them should they choose to.

[bogan]

Yet you can't debunk what he has said, just straight for the ad hominems... choice bro.

No it isn't... I thought we'd made that clear. I know why it achieved nothing and that it might actually achieve nothing, but I'm optimistic so post anyway in the hope that you'll grow a pair and man up.



You deny truth because you cannot look past where the information comes from. I'm flattered that I can affect you in such a way... although it's pretty pathetic really and so closed minded it renders every stance you take completely subjective, and such ironing coming from a so called self-professed objective person. Now go grab yer security blankie and we'll say no more about scared you truly are.

What part of the 'they must have 20% reserve' do you not understand? (I even gave the beginnings of a numerical example to SS in my reply just above what I wrote to you) it is a simple way to prove that there is a limit to how much $1 can be multiplied to; if you can't understand that, then you do need an education, that is not an ad-hominem, that is just an honest recommendation.

I mean it achieved nothing because you are just jerking yourself off with your own ignorance (russel brand, bono, etc, etc), if you feel like finding and applying some logic, you might be a bit happier. Always the same with you isn't it, you'll say something demonstrably false, then fall back on the whole semantics of what was said, or logic-less arguments of my way is better than the current way cos here is a big list of the negatives I see in the current way which isn't negativity, but the negatives you see in my way is negativity. Grow up mashy, and get rid of your narcissism.

Yawn, feel free to actually show me where you're right and I'm wrong, cos all this thread is showing is the 'stupid world', is a projection by the original poster (as shown by you inability to comprehend simple economic concepts like FRB).

[yokel]

Are you sure those assets are yours? I'm betting that the "authorities" could remove every single one of them should they choose to.

Yes I'm well aware of that,

[mashman]

What part of the 'they must have 20% reserve' do you not understand? (I even gave the beginnings of a numerical example to SS in my reply just above what I wrote to you) it is a simple way to prove that there is a limit to how much $1 can be multiplied to; if you can't understand that, then you do need an education, that is not an ad-hominem, that is just an honest recommendation.

I mean it achieved nothing because you are just jerking yourself off with your own ignorance (russel brand, bono, etc, etc), if you feel like finding and applying some logic, you might be a bit happier. Always the same with you isn't it, you'll say something demonstrably false, then fall back on the whole semantics of what was said, or logic-less arguments of my way is better than the current way cos here is a big list of the negatives I see in the current way which isn't negativity, but the negatives you see in my way is negativity. Grow up mashy, and get rid of your narcissism.

Yawn, feel free to actually show me where you're right and I'm wrong, cos all this thread is showing is the 'stupid world', is a projection by the original poster (as shown by you inability to comprehend simple economic concepts like FRB).

NZ has a reserve requirement of 20%? Oh dear bogdan, you really need to get your facts straight before spewing such tripe. Funny thing is, Scuba Steve showed a valid example and you denied it, primarily, by the looks of things, because you're looking at the issue from the perspective of a single bank. Irrespective, banging up figures to prove your argument even though you can't demonstratably prove otherwise is a desperate measure... but please, keep digging coz it's fuckin funny.

Oh my giddy aunt, you read what I have said incorrectly and then blame me for it :killingme GOLD. Shit, and it keeps on going. I've highlighted the issues with the current system by evaluating them against the positives of another system :rofl:, but it ain't surprising that you'd see things in the way (your negativity is glaring) you do irrespective of how far away from the mark they are. You need to watch your projection son, coz I'm almost starting to feel embarrased for you... and would do if I wasn't pissing myself with laughter at just about every single spoonfed nugget of gold that you regurgitate with ultimate confidence, irrespective of its validity.

So, we're back to right and wrong eh. I have no need to show that you're right or wrong, the few KB members that have posted and the word of nz economists and the imf have done that job quite comfortably :rofl:, but fuck man, that's classic bogdan right there. Here endeth the lesson for today. I know you won't have learned anything given your propensity for ignoring the message, but kudos for sticking it to the man bro (economists and imf) by denying that which they tell you is factual.


Yes I'm well aware of that,

heh, just checkin in case you'd come down with bogdanitis.

[mashman]

Tax evasion: a multi billion-dollar issue (https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-evasion-multi-billion-dollar-170657160.html)... well duh, shirley they don't think them legal loopholes are there by accident... and if you close them all of the rich people will runaway :killingme. If they don't give a shit about life in NZ, then they should fuck off :bye:. Aye, money, it's a winner :tugger:

[bogan]

NZ has a reserve requirement of 20%? Oh dear bogdan, you really need to get your facts straight before spewing such tripe. Funny thing is, Scuba Steve showed a valid example and you denied it, primarily, by the looks of things, because you're looking at the issue from the perspective of a single bank. Irrespective, banging up figures to prove your argument even though you can't demonstratably prove otherwise is a desperate measure... but please, keep digging coz it's fuckin funny.

Oh my giddy aunt, you read what I have said incorrectly and then blame me for it :killingme GOLD. Shit, and it keeps on going. I've highlighted the issues with the current system by evaluating them against the positives of another system :rofl:, but it ain't surprising that you'd see things in the way (your negativity is glaring) you do irrespective of how far away from the mark they are. You need to watch your projection son, coz I'm almost starting to feel embarrased for you... and would do if I wasn't pissing myself with laughter at just about every single spoonfed nugget of gold that you regurgitate with ultimate confidence, irrespective of its validity.

So, we're back to right and wrong eh. I have no need to show that you're right or wrong, the few KB members that have posted and the word of nz economists and the imf have done that job quite comfortably :rofl:, but fuck man, that's classic bogdan right there. Here endeth the lesson for today. I know you won't have learned anything given your propensity for ignoring the message, but kudos for sticking it to the man bro (economists and imf) by denying that which they tell you is factual.



heh, just checkin in case you'd come down with bogdanitis.

No that was the example (which is why I put 'from example' in brackets). ScubaSteve's example is flawed as it does not take into account any fractional reserve, multiple banks make no difference; please explain how a bank can turn $1 into $125 given they must hold 20% (an example number) in reserve. This is a simple task, it is what your previous assertion that the 'banks print money' has boiled down to, lets dispense with the rest of the hyperbole and just focus on this simple little bit of maths.

[Akzle]

focus on this simple little bit of maths.

1 ≠ 5
1 ≇ 5

any way you dice it.

[mashman]

But then it'd just be worth 1$ yet they now have 5$ also you're neglecting the next stage where that imaginary 5$ is taken & split into another 25$ so now we have 25$ backed by 1$ but it doesn't stop there cause that 25$ will be taken & turned into 125$ still only backed by 1$ & this goes on & on until someone defaults & that OG 1$ turns out not to be much of a backing after all because all that $$$ turns out to be made from nothing after all... Now you know the basics of the GFC


No that was the example (which is why I put 'from example' in brackets). ScubaSteve's example is flawed as it does not take into account any fractional reserve, multiple banks make no difference; please explain how a bank can turn $1 into $125 given they must hold 20% (an example number) in reserve. This is a simple task, it is what your previous assertion that the 'banks print money' has boiled down to, lets dispense with the rest of the hyperbole and just focus on this simple little bit of maths.

After the first round of $1 lending the bank ends up with $5 debt on the books or $5 in repaid loans. Either way, you start again with $5 "deposit", rinse, repeat, and all from $1.
That or become a bank in a country that doesn't have a reserve requirement.

The actual maths is unrequired because as you said earlier, they could just have gone straight for $5 with nothing backing it, because that initial $1 wasn't backed with anything either... well, nothing more than confidence in the newly created ponzi scheme.

[bogan]

1 ≠ 5
1 ≇ 5

any way you dice it.

I know. FRB doesn't violate this, look at the amount of money actually in circulation at any one given stage of the transaction path.


After the first round of $1 lending the bank ends up with $5 debt on the books or $5 in repaid loans. Either way, you start again with $5 "deposit", rinse, repeat, and all from $1.
That or become a bank in a country that doesn't have a reserve requirement.

Wrong, the first round of lending is that the $1 deposited is split into 20c the bank must keep, and 80c they lend out to somebody else; thus the name of fractional reserve.

There is a table on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking) that shows you transaction progression.

[mashman]

Wrong, the first round of lending is that the $1 deposited is split into 20c the bank must keep, and 80c they lend out to somebody else; thus the name of fractional reserve.

There is a table on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking) that shows you transaction progression.

Sigh... The end of the first round of lending as much as can be lent until the principle can no longer be lent i.e. K, the bank ends up with 457.05. That 457.05 can then be lent out again. You said what about semantics earlier? I guess you can't help it.

[Brian d marge]

Nz is a bit murky they dont release a lot of detail

But that dollar 80 cents is lent out 20 cents is held

The interest on the 80 cents is pure fictional money u pay the bank for the risk it takes in lending u fictional money

When u repay that debt the money is destroyed but the interest u paid isnt

Do a search for banke moon speech printing money
I posted it here a long time ago

Not in a position to calculate the returns on that dollar

If i have a chance i will

[bogan]

Sigh... The end of the first round of lending as much as can be lent until the principle can no longer be lent i.e. K, the bank ends up with 457.05. That 457.05 can then be lent out again. You said what about semantics earlier? I guess you can't help it.

No, it can't, the 457.05 is total deposits (which would be 500 by end of cycle), not what they have or can lend; what the bank can lend at that point is 8.59 (or 0 at end of cycle). At the end of that cycle there is no cash in circulation from the original amount, as all $100 of it is in the bank. The money multiplier comes from that along the way those many people have deposited a total of 500 with the bank, and the bank has lent 400 out to those (or other) people with 100 in reserve.

Another way of looking at it, do the sums assuming all transactions are done by one person, total lent out is 400, total deposited is 500, leaving bank with all the money the person originally had (as per the first deposit) and only that amount; no more has been created along the way.


Nz is a bit murky they dont release a lot of detail

But that dollar 80 cents is lent out 20 cents is held

The interest on the 80 cents is pure fictional money u pay the bank for the risk it takes in lending u fictional money

When u repay that debt the money is destroyed but the interest u paid isnt

Do a search for banke moon speech printing money
I posted it here a long time ago

Not in a position to calculate the returns on that dollar

If i have a chance i will

I don't think NZ has an FRB limit in that sense, as it has mostly been superceded by a capital requirement, but that's a bit more complex in implementation with risk weighted assets etc, but follows the same general trend I think; ie, FRB is primer level, capital requirement is beginner level... and so on.

Interest on money lent is payment for a service, return on investment etc; same way that the $1 worth of gear can be sold for $2 as a product/service.

[Brian d marge]

No, it can't, the 457.05 is total deposits (which would be 500 by end of cycle), not what they have or can lend; what the bank can lend at that point is 8.59 (or 0 at end of cycle). At the end of that cycle there is no cash in circulation from the original amount, as all $100 of it is in the bank. The money multiplier comes from that along the way those many people have deposited a total of 500 with the bank, and the bank has lent 400 out to those (or other) people with 100 in reserve.

Another way of looking at it, do the sums assuming all transactions are done by one person, total lent out is 400, total deposited is 500, leaving bank with all the money the person originally had (as per the first deposit) and only that amount; no more has been created along the way.



I don't think NZ has an FRB limit in that sense, as it has mostly been superceded by a capital requirement, but that's a bit more complex in implementation with risk weighted assets etc, but follows the same general trend I think; ie, FRB is primer level, capital requirement is beginner level... and so on.

Interest on money lent is payment for a service, return on investment etc; same way that the $1 worth of gear can be sold for $2 as a product/service.
Yes
I was just doing some sums using the 80 cent addin compound interest
Future value = （principle x fractional reserve rate say 5) x( 1+%rate) ^ number of years

That 80 cents gets raped

What ur saying is the lending will always be limited by the reserve

But the reserve is growing at a compound rate methinks

[bogan]

Yes
I was just doing some sums using the 80 cent addin compound interest
Future value = （principle x fractional reserve rate say 5) x( 1+%rate) ^ number of years

That 80 cents gets raped

You as long as the %rate is diff between lending and deposit rate, also should be principal time money multiplier minus 1, but yeh, bang on, they do get good mileage.

[mashman]

No, it can't, the 457.05 is total deposits (which would be 500 by end of cycle), not what they have or can lend; what the bank can lend at that point is 8.59 (or 0 at end of cycle). At the end of that cycle there is no cash in circulation from the original amount, as all $100 of it is in the bank. The money multiplier comes from that along the way those many people have deposited a total of 500 with the bank, and the bank has lent 400 out to those (or other) people with 100 in reserve.

Another way of looking at it, do the sums assuming all transactions are done by one person, total lent out is 400, total deposited is 500, leaving bank with all the money the person originally had (as per the first deposit) and only that amount; no more has been created along the way.

From 100 of total deposits the banks end up with 457.05 of total deposits. Banks lend from deposits, coz that's exactly what the bank did when it had 100 to begin with. At that point in time there was also no money in circulation either. The bank has created 357.05 (assuming that the 100 wasn't printed out of thin air in the first place) from thin air and it has only been backed by 100. The only reason they have the likes of reserve/capital requirements is because it'd be obvious to joe public that they're creating money out of nothing.

[Scuba_Steve]

No that was the example (which is why I put 'from example' in brackets). ScubaSteve's example is flawed as it does not take into account any fractional reserve, multiple banks make no difference; please explain how a bank can turn $1 into $125 given they must hold 20% (an example number) in reserve. This is a simple task, it is what your previous assertion that the 'banks print money' has boiled down to, lets dispense with the rest of the hyperbole and just focus on this simple little bit of maths.

Here maybee pictures will help you to learned

http://radiofreethinker.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/fractionalreservebanking.png

[Ocean1]

that is horseshit. aside from many factual inaccuracies, that's as "rose-tinted" and biased as much of the shit on the other side of the argument.

It may be horseshit here in stupid world but I can assure you it's a perfectly correct and accurate summary of recent historical trends in the real world.

If you want to use real world arguments then bring numbers or stfu.

Trying to pretend that the current generation is worse off than any previous generation in any regard that matters is a function of fuckwits that desperately need to offload the blame for their own failure onto someone/thing else. It's bullshit, pure and simple.

[Akzle]

It may be horseshit here in stupid world but I can assure you it's a perfectly correct and accurate summary of recent historical trends in the real world.

If you want to use real world arguments then bring numbers or stfu.

Trying to pretend that the current generation is worse off than any previous generation in any regard that matters is a function of fuckwits that desperately need to offload the blame for their own failure onto someone/thing else. It's bullshit, pure and simple.

no, no it isn't. you poor, poor, old, white cunt.

[bogan]

From 100 of total deposits the banks end up with 457.05 of total deposits. Banks lend from deposits, coz that's exactly what the bank did when it had 100 to begin with. At that point in time there was also no money in circulation either. The bank has created 357.05 (assuming that the 100 wasn't printed out of thin air in the first place) from thin air and it has only been backed by 100. The only reason they have the likes of reserve/capital requirements is because it'd be obvious to joe public that they're creating money out of nothing.

Yeh, but that is a meaningless figure as it only counts money going in, it is the difference that matters. I can put the same 20buck note into my wallet 5 times but that doesn't give me 100bucks to spend, because after the first time I have to take it out again before putting it back it, which is why the bank has 357 of withdrawals to offset those deposits; it has no more created 357 than I can create $80 out of thin air with just a wallet and a bill.


Here maybee pictures will help you to learned

http://radiofreethinker.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/fractionalreservebanking.png

Notice in that example the total loaned at each step gets smaller, total loaned overall is principal/reserve rate in your own example (100/0.1=1000=100+90+81+72.9+65.6....), thus contradicting your earlier point about $1 turning into $125 with a 20% reserve rate; so I put it to you, will the picture help you to learned? cos it backs up my point perfectly.

Also why did they omit that the 90 units is deposited again? in that example 100 units becomes 190 deposited and 171 loaned, or a net deposit of 19 unit with 81 remaining in circulation (ignoring the final arrow ofc); the sum still adds to 100 so what has actually been created?

[Brian d marge]

Keep the 5 dollars in ya pocket write an iou 5 time and lend those out at5 percent

[mashman]

Yeh, but that is a meaningless figure as it only counts money going in, it is the difference that matters. I can put the same 20buck note into my wallet 5 times but that doesn't give me 100bucks to spend, because after the first time I have to take it out again before putting it back it, which is why the bank has 357 of withdrawals to offset those deposits; it has no more created 357 than I can create $80 out of thin air with just a wallet and a bill.

Where does that money going in come from? Other than from it being lent out? Literally plucked out of thin air i.e. magic? after all, that 300-500 is more than the 100 it started out as.

[bogan]

Where does that money going in come from? Other than from it being lent out? Literally plucked out of thin air i.e. magic? after all, that 300-500 is more than the 100 it started out as.

The original 100 goes in, then 80 is lent out, providing 80 that can come back in, etc etc, nothing is plucked from thin air. All the sums add up. Just like balancing a bank statement, you take both the income (deposits) and expenses (withdrawals) to find out how much money you actually have.

Or another example, me and 4 mates pass a 20 dollar note from wallet to wallet (0% fractional reserve), how has $80 been created and where is it?

[Ocean1]

no, no it isn't. you poor, poor, old, white cunt.

I ain't poor, I ain't old and I ain't white.

And you're batting average ain't improving.

Like I said, numbers or stfu.

[Akzle]

I ain't poor, I ain't old and I ain't white.

And you're batting average ain't improving.

Like I said, numbers or stfu.

oh youre poor alright.

[Ocean1]

oh youre poor alright.

A relative term, to be sure.

But I have everything I want.

Which, given your repetitive bleating about shit makes me relatively a fucking sight better off than you.

Akzel needs to work, (harder)

[Brian d marge]

The NZ banks as I understand them

First off NZ has no fractional reserve rate , As far AS I know . this mean it can lend out that dollar as much as they want ...

However they are constrained by capital requirement ratios. or capital adequacy ratio of around 76 % ( asb)

The governments or RBNZ prints around 2% in hard currency M1 cash ( off top of head )

New money enters the system by the RBNZ either by direct printing , ( yes hitting a few keys on a keyboard ) or selling of assets such as bonds , gold silver etc .... and they are constrained to hold the inflation rate between 2 AND 3% SO THEY CAN JUST INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY , so they go in the back door by allowing the reserve currency to accumulate interest.( cant find info on this about nz ) ...this is what QE actually is ......moving money so that it can be used .....

The banks now have capital to lend against, so

when you come in for a dollar ....they hit a few keys and produce out of thin air ...one dollar


at 5.75 %

So as there is no reserve to be kept , but are constrained by capital adequacy , 7.6% we get

Future value = $ 1 principle sum x 7.6 times they can lend it out x ( 1+ interest rate 5.75 ) ^no of years

Fv = 7.6 x ( 1+5.75 ) ^1

Fv= $9.50
now after the 1 year they have $8.37 to lend out .......NOT 7.6 compounding ,,,

therefore

FV= 8.37 x7.6 x (1+5.75)^1
=67.26
and so on .............540 ...$ 4339.98 .......$34 880........ $280 333.7.................


Now Im not sure how to apply the capital adequacy ratio I THINK it acts in the same way was the fractional reserve rate , which I think is 9 in America

So , if some one more knowledgeable could add , Im all ears , but them the facts as I understand them

Stephen

at the end of the day shonkey shylock was an apt description


at the current rate of 5.7 % per anumn

[Brian d marge]

I ain't poor, I ain't old and I ain't white.

And you're batting average ain't improving.

Like I said, numbers or stfu.

you look pretty peaky in ya picture , maybe its just a too high ISO setting .....

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

and as for who is dumping the oil .....

our friends the Saudis ......

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2014/10/blogs/graphic-detail/20141018_gdc875.png

[Akzle]

Which, given your repetitive bleating about shit makes me relatively a fucking sight better off than you.

Akzel needs to work, (harder)

1) say what? have you somehow mistaken anything i've done for "bleating about shit"?
rarking up old white cunts is one of my hobbies.
also, since i don't actually recall bleating for some time, what would be the "shit" that you're on about?

2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w_XuOBnUAg

[mashman]

The original 100 goes in, then 80 is lent out, providing 80 that can come back in, etc etc, nothing is plucked from thin air. All the sums add up. Just like balancing a bank statement, you take both the income (deposits) and expenses (withdrawals) to find out how much money you actually have.

Or another example, me and 4 mates pass a 20 dollar note from wallet to wallet (0% fractional reserve), how has $80 been created and where is it?

Of course there's money plucked out of thin air... that first 100 to start with.

Total Deposits: 457.05
Total Amount Lent: 357.05
Reserve: 100

That's the summary. Total lent is done and dusted and according to you those numbers look all happy lovely as they add together to balance the transactions, except when the dust has settled the bank has 457.05 and 100 giving a grand total of 557.05 (I took the 100 away earlier instead of adding it). That means that the bank has made 200 on all of the transactions because they have the returned total deposits as well as the reserve.

All of it is pulled out of thin air, however the 457.05 is backed by the 100, not by 457.05. Now that those total deposits exist, you can lend that 457.05 and after that round you'll end up with 2285.10, rinse and repeat and you've created (printed) 2285.10 that has only ever been backed by 100.

[bogan]

Of course there's money plucked out of thin air... that first 100 to start with.

Total Deposits: 457.05
Total Amount Lent: 357.05
Reserve: 100

That's the summary. Total lent is done and dusted and according to you those numbers look all happy lovely as they add together to balance the transactions, except when the dust has settled the bank has 457.05 and 100 giving a grand total of 557.05 (I took the 100 away earlier instead of adding it). That means that the bank has made 200 on all of the transactions because they have the returned total deposits as well as the reserve.

All of it is pulled out of thin air, however the 457.05 is backed by the 100, not by 457.05. Now that those total deposits exist, you can lend that 457.05 and after that round you'll end up with 2285.10, rinse and repeat and you've created (printed) 2285.10 that has only ever been backed by 100.

The first 100 is deposited into the bank by a person, one assumes the person has obtained it not by way of magery, but in either case, it is not the bank that plucks that 100 out of thin air.

When the dust has settled the bank has 100 in reserve, 457 in money it owes people, and 357 in money people owe it; this completely balances out, and none has been created. You cannot lend that 457 out because the bank does not have 457 to lend as 347 of that has already been lent out. That is like just adding the income on your bank statement while ignoring the expenses and then going an spending that income again, simple maths just doesn't work that way, you can't minus things twice. ie 457-357 != 457

[bogan]

The NZ banks as I understand them

First off NZ has no fractional reserve rate , As far AS I know . this mean it can lend out that dollar as much as they want ...

However they are constrained by capital requirement ratios. or capital adequacy ratio of around 76 % ( asb)

The governments or RBNZ prints around 2% in hard currency M1 cash ( off top of head )

New money enters the system by the RBNZ either by direct printing , ( yes hitting a few keys on a keyboard ) or selling of assets such as bonds , gold silver etc .... and they are constrained to hold the inflation rate between 2 AND 3% SO THEY CAN JUST INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY , so they go in the back door by allowing the reserve currency to accumulate interest.( cant find info on this about nz ) ...this is what QE actually is ......moving money so that it can be used .....

The banks now have capital to lend against, so

when you come in for a dollar ....they hit a few keys and produce out of thin air ...one dollar


at 5.75 %

So as there is no reserve to be kept , but are constrained by capital adequacy , 7.6% we get

Future value = $ 1 principle sum x 7.6 times they can lend it out x ( 1+ interest rate 5.75 ) ^no of years

Fv = 7.6 x ( 1+5.75 ) ^1

Fv= $9.50
now after the 1 year they have $8.37 to lend out .......NOT 7.6 compounding ,,,

therefore

FV= 8.37 x7.6 x (1+5.75)^1
=67.26
and so on .............540 ...$ 4339.98 .......$34 880........ $280 333.7.................


Now Im not sure how to apply the capital adequacy ratio I THINK it acts in the same way was the fractional reserve rate , which I think is 9 in America

So , if some one more knowledgeable could add , Im all ears , but them the facts as I understand them

Stephen

at the end of the day shonkey shylock was an apt description


at the current rate of 5.7 % per anumn

That's the key part, how the CAR is applied and that is what limits how far that dollar can be stretched. Interest is another issue entirely as it is money generated via a service, the service may be simple as, but it is one people choose to pay for, thus it is not money created from nothing.

[Brian d marge]

That's the key part, how the CAR is applied and that is what limits how far that dollar can be stretched. Interest is another issue entirely as it is money generated via a service, the service may be simple as, but it is one people choose to pay for, thus it is not money created from nothing.
Car
Is the ratio odassetss to lending
That dollar can be lent out as many times as they want
Held in check by the value of the assets
The original dollar came into the system either . . . .yes from thin air the purchase of government debt or by other asset transfers . . Gold and silver
Think how did asb? Give a billion dollars to christchurch
It was computer generated money

Now i agree on the interest charged for a service

Butthe simple answer do banks print money out of thin air

Yes

[yokel]

[QUOTE=Brian d marge;1130782900
Butthe simple answer do banks print money out of thin air

Yes[/QUOTE]

And no,
If you have an idea for say an invention and you draw a plan did that invention come out of thin air?

[Scuba_Steve]

if everyone went down to the banks tomorrow & asked to withdraw all their money they [the banks] would not be able to fulfil the order, why? Because the money doesn't exist, most of it never has; it's just a lot of IOU's

[Brian d marge]

if everyone went down to the banks tomorrow & asked to withdraw all their money they [the banks] would not be able to fulfil the order, why? Because the money doesn't exist, most of it never has; it's just a lot of IOU's
Royal bank of scotland

[Akzle]

if everyone went down to the banks tomorrow & asked to withdraw all their money they [the banks] would not be able to fulfil the order, why? Because the money doesn't exist, most of it never has; it's just a lot of IOU's

thank fuck for OBR, where the banks aren't actually obliged to give you any cashcash, in such a case, or, if they otherwise feel like it.
becasue it would be such a fucking tragedy if the banks couldn't operate...

[bogan]

if everyone went down to the banks tomorrow & asked to withdraw all their money they [the banks] would not be able to fulfil the order, why? Because the money doesn't exist, most of it never has; it's just a lot of IOU's

They could if they called in all the money they had loaned out (under FRB). The maths and explanation are simple, and correct as I explained them. The problem with it that we both share with the system is the crash you outlined, however it is not caused by bank printing money or otherwise creating it out of thin air, it is caused by banks loaning so much of the money they get, out again to people that cannot repay it at the drop of a hat. The crash and complication in the system come when those markers are called in, yet they cannot be paid back due to reasons like insolvency/bankruptcy bad investments, assets devaluation etc etc.

[bogan]

Car
Is the ratio odassetss to lending
That dollar can be lent out as many times as they want
Held in check by the value of the assets
The original dollar came into the system either . . . .yes from thin air the purchase of government debt or by other asset transfers . . Gold and silver
Think how did asb? Give a billion dollars to christchurch
It was computer generated money

Now i agree on the interest charged for a service

Butthe simple answer do banks print money out of thin air

Yes

Indeed, asset wealth to lending. If CAR is set at 10%, $1 worth of assets (deposited coin) can only be lent 10 times, thus the limit is real. <s> I'm not sure how this works in practice though, FRB is easy cos at any transaction stage the total that can be lent out is always less than the money the bank has. But in this case, do they just manage lending to ensure they don't go below the CAR? ie, get $1 capital in, lend out 10? (and no that 10 can't be used as more capital for more loans) or is it similar to FRB in that money owed to bank is not include when calculating money multiplier?</s> EDIT: actually nm, it still adds to the original value when subtracting loans/deposits so I'm not sure whay you are on about when you say that dollar can be lent out as many times as they want? Similarly to FRB, that dollar can be lent out as many times as it is deposited.

I'm still getting the simple answer that they can stretch money already in existence, but only so far.

[yokel]

if everyone went down to the banks tomorrow & asked to withdraw all their money they [the banks] would not be able to fulfil the order, why? Because the money doesn't exist, most of it never has; it's just a lot of IOU's

That's right unless everyone today repaid all their loans,
I don't think that would be a lot people that would actually have any money to withdraw anyway haha

[Brian d marge]

Indeed, asset wealth to lending. If CAR is set at 10%, $1 worth of assets (deposited coin) can only be lent 10 times, thus the limit is real. <s> I'm not sure how this works in practice though, FRB is easy cos at any transaction stage the total that can be lent out is always less than the money the bank has. But in this case, do they just manage lending to ensure they don't go below the CAR? ie, get $1 capital in, lend out 10? (and no that 10 can't be used as more capital for more loans) or is it similar to FRB in that money owed to bank is not include when calculating money multiplier?</s> EDIT: actually nm, it still adds to the original value when subtracting loans/deposits so I'm not sure whay you are on about when you say that dollar can be lent out as many times as they want? Similarly to FRB, that dollar can be lent out as many times as it is deposited.

I'm still getting the simple answer that they can stretch money already in existence, but only so far.
If u use the british model same as the american frb
3 percent is kept as a reserve so 93 pence can be lent out 9 times
The 9 times is a law in place to reduce the damage in case of a bank run . . Im not sure of the exact figire of top of head 9 or whatever

9 x 97p is 8 pound odd

So 7 pound is imaginary money

It doesnt exits never has done

And there are of course check and balances to minimise the damage

For example asset ratios and min reserves

But the only thing really that backs the loan . . .is the credibility of the institution

It sux but there it is

[mashman]

The first 100 is deposited into the bank by a person, one assumes the person has obtained it not by way of magery, but in either case, it is not the bank that plucks that 100 out of thin air.

When the dust has settled the bank has 100 in reserve, 457 in money it owes people, and 357 in money people owe it; this completely balances out, and none has been created. You cannot lend that 457 out because the bank does not have 457 to lend as 347 of that has already been lent out. That is like just adding the income on your bank statement while ignoring the expenses and then going an spending that income again, simple maths just doesn't work that way, you can't minus things twice. ie 457-357 != 457

Where did the person get the 100 from in the first place? Most probable answer is that the money was plucked out of thin air by the bank because the person turned up with a lump of gold or a cow or a shiny dog turd or sommink else that has some form of perceived value. Either way, the money is plucked out of thin air.

Transaction 1: the bank still has 100. 20 in reserve and a 80 asset.
Transaction 2: the bank still has 80. 16 in reserve and a 64 asset.
etc...

Banks have lent out, but are still owed. By the end of round 1 the banks have 457.05 of deposits. That those deposits belong to someone else is irrelevant, because if it were relevant, then how can you lend the initial 100 deposit which you say wasn't the banks to begin with? At that very same point in time they also hold the 100 reserve. All money created is plucked out of thin air.

[bogan]

If u use the british model same as the american frb
3 percent is kept as a reserve so 93 pence can be lent out 9 times
The 9 times is a law in place to reduce the damage in case of a bank run . . Im not sure of the exact figire of top of head 9 or whatever

9 x 97p is 8 pound odd

So 7 pound is imaginary money

It doesnt exits never has done

And there are of course check and balances to minimise the damage

For example asset ratios and min reserves

But the only thing really that backs the loan . . .is the credibility of the institution

It sux but there it is

That 8 odd pound is only lent out if others owe the bank 7 pound. I'm sure those who owe the bank would rather it be imaginary, but it certainly isn't. The money multiplier thing is actually inhibiting the banks from lending even more, were there no FRB or equivalent the money could be lent out an infinite amount of times as long as it was also deposited an infinite amount of times. In FRB banks cannot lend out money they do not have, they cannot lend the same money out twice unless it is redeposited.

A bank run won't break the banks because the money doesn't exist, a bank run will break the banks because that money is unavailable, it will break the economy by adjusting the value of goods and the dollar due to that unavailability.

[bogan]

Where did the person get the 100 from in the first place? Most probable answer is that the money was plucked out of thin air by the bank because the person turned up with a lump of gold or a cow or a shiny dog turd or sommink else that has some form of perceived value. Either way, the money is plucked out of thin air.

Transaction 1: the bank still has 100. 20 in reserve and a 80 asset.
Transaction 2: the bank still has 80. 16 in reserve and a 64 asset.
etc...

Banks have lent out, but are still owed. By the end of round 1 the banks have 457.05 of deposits. That those deposits belong to someone else is irrelevant, because if it were relevant, then how can you lend the initial 100 deposit which you say wasn't the banks to begin with? At that very same point in time they also hold the 100 reserve. All money created is plucked out of thin air.

That is a valid opinion, but it is not plucked out of thin air by the bank.

Transaction 1 bank gets 100, pus 20 in reserve and lends the 80 out, leaving the bank 20 in reserve, 100 in debt, and 80 in loan asset; 0 sum.
Transaction 2 bank gets 80, puts 16 in reserve with the 20 and lends 64 out, leaving the bank 36 in reserve, 180 in debt, and 144 in asset; again this is 0 sum, as is every step down the chain.
The end of all rounds (as decreed by the reserve requirement) is 500 in deposits, 400 in loans, and 100 in reserve; still 0 sum.

The bank cannot lend out that 100 in reserve or a portion of it as the reserve requirement ties it to the 400 already loaned out. Perhaps you are thinking of the banks reserve as cash in drawer it can do what it likes with? That is not the case, it can only put that cash back into circulation when the loan it is tied to is paid up. Ie, after first deposit bank has 100, it lends 40 out which leaves the bank with 50 cash on hand, and 10 in the reserve.
The initial 100 deposit is a loan service contract from an individual to the banks; in return for the bank holding the money securely and paying out a small amount of interest the bank gets to use the money itself to lend to another person. At that point in time (before first loan) they do hold that deposited money in reserve, and could pay it straight back if the depositor wanted to make that withdrawal. Nowhere in that process has the bank generated money out of thin air.

[Oscar]

That is a valid opinion, but it is not plucked out of thin air by the bank.

Transaction 1 bank gets 100, pus 20 in reserve and lends the 80 out, leaving the bank 20 in reserve, 100 in debt, and 80 in loan asset; 0 sum.
Transaction 2 bank gets 80, puts 16 in reserve with the 20 and lends 64 out, leaving the bank 36 in reserve, 180 in debt, and 144 in asset; again this is 0 sum, as is every step down the chain.
The end of all rounds (as decreed by the reserve requirement) is 500 in deposits, 400 in loans, and 100 in reserve; still 0 sum.

The bank cannot lend out that 100 in reserve or a portion of it as the reserve requirement ties it to the 400 already loaned out. Perhaps you are thinking of the banks reserve as cash in drawer it can do what it likes with? That is not the case, it can only put that cash back into circulation when the loan it is tied to is paid up. Ie, after first deposit bank has 100, it lends 40 out which leaves the bank with 50 cash on hand, and 10 in the reserve.
The initial 100 deposit is a loan service contract from an individual to the banks; in return for the bank holding the money securely and paying out a small amount of interest the bank gets to use the money itself to lend to another person. At that point in time (before first loan) they do hold that deposited money in reserve, and could pay it straight back if the depositor wanted to make that withdrawal. Nowhere in that process has the bank generated money out of thin air.

You must spread some Reputation around before....I don't know why you bother arguing with these idiots.

[bogan]

You must spread some Reputation around before....I don't know why you bother arguing with these idiots.

Arguing? I'm just trying to see if they can be educated. I reckon they all have intelligence but I'm not sure if they have the ability or open mindedness to apply it where banks/money/'the man' are concerned.

As an FYI to them, that was an honest evaluation, not an ad-hominem so lets not start down that road again...

[unstuck]

I don't know why you bother arguing with these idiots.

Maybe the same reason YOU like to argue with them.:devil2:

[mashman]

That is a valid opinion, but it is not plucked out of thin air by the bank.

Transaction 1 bank gets 100, pus 20 in reserve and lends the 80 out, leaving the bank 20 in reserve, 100 in debt, and 80 in loan asset; 0 sum.
Transaction 2 bank gets 80, puts 16 in reserve with the 20 and lends 64 out, leaving the bank 36 in reserve, 180 in debt, and 144 in asset; again this is 0 sum, as is every step down the chain.
The end of all rounds (as decreed by the reserve requirement) is 500 in deposits, 400 in loans, and 100 in reserve; still 0 sum.

The bank cannot lend out that 100 in reserve or a portion of it as the reserve requirement ties it to the 400 already loaned out. Perhaps you are thinking of the banks reserve as cash in drawer it can do what it likes with? That is not the case, it can only put that cash back into circulation when the loan it is tied to is paid up. Ie, after first deposit bank has 100, it lends 40 out which leaves the bank with 50 cash on hand, and 10 in the reserve.
The initial 100 deposit is a loan service contract from an individual to the banks; in return for the bank holding the money securely and paying out a small amount of interest the bank gets to use the money itself to lend to another person. At that point in time (before first loan) they do hold that deposited money in reserve, and could pay it straight back if the depositor wanted to make that withdrawal. Nowhere in that process has the bank generated money out of thin air.

I didn't say that the reserve could be lent out. I see why you would infer that, fair enough, but I haven't stated such.
Where did the individual get the 100 from? You're turning 100 into 500, that requires the creation of money out of thin air... unless of course you believe this guy to be a liar (first one of many that I came to).

http://www.positivemoney.org.nz/images/Martin_Wolf.png

[Brian d marge]

So is every major economist is an idiot then

[unstuck]

So is every major economist is an idiot then

Yes.:niceone:

[yokel]

I didn't say that the reserve could be lent out. I see why you would infer that, fair enough, but I haven't stated such.
Where did the individual get the 100 from? You're turning 100 into 500, that requires the creation of money out of thin air... unless of course you believe this guy to be a liar (first one of many that I came to).



Money has an agreed value that is why the government is printed on bank notes so when there is issues they will sort you out.
While it appears that the banks create money out of nothing or out of thin air, there is actually something in that thin air.

the banking system is not the problem, it's actually the absolute best way to handle time and resources between people or entities.
the issue is that it is controlled by psychopathic warmongering mother fuckers and if you dream up some other way of handling transactions you can be rest assured the psychopaths will takeover and control your new money system.

[mashman]

So is every major economist is an idiot then

They're bound by the rules that they've been brought up and educate with and know no better... just like every other sheeple. It's the idiots, like the fella below, that give the system credence that condemn economists as looking like idiots. Some of us know better irrespective of what we've said in the past :killingme.


Yes.:niceone:

:bleh:

[unstuck]

They're bound by the rules that they've been brought up and educate with and know no better... just like every other sheeple. It's the idiots, like the fella below, that give the system credence that condemn economists as looking like idiots. Some of us know better irrespective of what we've said in the past :killingme.



:bleh:

Educated, fool.:bleh:

[bogan]

I didn't say that the reserve could be lent out. I see why you would infer that, fair enough, but I haven't stated such.
Where did the individual get the 100 from? You're turning 100 into 500, that requires the creation of money out of thin air... unless of course you believe this guy to be a liar (first one of many that I came to).

Excellent, so tell me exactly what can be lent out at the end of that $500 cycle to multiply it again? The 500 can't because the bank doesn't have that, the 400 is already lent out so that can't either, and the 100 is reserve so that can't be touched.

He might be right in a sense with how they move money around and charge interest and all other subtle techniques, but if he is talking about it in this context FRB then he is wrong.


So is every major economist is an idiot then

Perhaps not every one of them... You can't fall back on 'this is what economists say though' as a counterpoint to such a simple and numerical explanation as I provided, because what people say can be taken out of context or wrong; the numbers however, don't lie, and show us the true story. FRB does not create money out of thin air, find me a major economist who says it does and I'll either find a misinterpretation or an idiot.

[mashman]

Money has an agreed value that is why the government is printed on bank notes so when there is issues they will sort you out.
While it appears that the banks create money out of nothing or out of thin air, there is actually something in that thin air.

the banking system is not the problem, it's actually the absolute best way to handle time and resources between people or entities.
the issue is that it is controlled by psychopathic warmongering mother fuckers and if you dream up some other way of handling transactions you can be rest assured the psychopaths will takeover and control your new money system.

lol, my eyes, my eyes.

[mashman]

Educated, fool.:bleh:

heh, touchme.

[mashman]

Excellent, so tell me exactly what can be lent out at the end of that $500 cycle to multiply it again? The 500 can't because the bank doesn't have that, the 400 is already lent out so that can't either, and the 100 is reserve so that can't be touched.

He might be right in a sense with how they move money around and charge interest and all other subtle techniques, but if he is talking about it in this context FRB then he is wrong.

It's a never ending cycle. The bank does have it, because they hold the deposits.

So FRB doesn't move money around, even though it's turned 100 into 500? :rofl:@techniques... in other words, they make their own rules up in order to keep people from noticing that they're simply printing money.

[bogan]

It's a never ending cycle. The bank does have it, because they hold the deposits.

So FRB doesn't move money around, even though it's turned 100 into 500? :rofl:@techniques... in other words, they make their own rules up in order to keep people from noticing that they're simply printing money.

They don't hold the deposits, they have lend the deposits out. Transaction 2 is able to put in 80 because 80 was lent out to them from transaction 1. Or are you thinking the subsequent transactions are from new people?

Let's just focus on showing how that 100 gets turned into 500, cos it still looks like 100 to me.

[yokel]

lol, my eyes, my eyes.

Oh you want me to stop pissing in them? Haha,

[mashman]

They don't hold the deposits, they have lend the deposits out. Transaction 2 is able to put in 80 because 80 was lent out to them from transaction 1. Or are you thinking the subsequent transactions are from new people?

Let's just focus on showing how that 100 gets turned into 500, cos it still looks like 100 to me.

In the example you put forwards, the 80 goes to bank B who lends 64 to bank C... and throughout the chain the deposits go into the banks before being loaned out and those loans are bank assets.

[mashman]

Oh you want me to stop pissing in them? Haha,

I'd appreciate it lol.

[bogan]

In the example you put forwards, the 80 goes to bank B who lends 64 to bank C... and throughout the chain the deposits go into the banks before being loaned out and those loans are bank assets.

Loans are bank assets, as deposits are bank liabilities; think about it from the banks perspective, every time they loan money out they take money from bank wallet and give it to somebody else to return later, ie, a deposit with somebody else. The 100 goes to bank A who then loans 80 to bank B leaving bank A with only 20 (which they can't touch anyway). The only way for bank A to retain that 80 for later use would be if they copied it before sending it to bank B (which would be money printing) which doesn't happen of course.

[yokel]

I'd appreciate it lol.

would you appreciate 100 bucks instead??

[mashman]

Loans are bank assets, as deposits are bank liabilities; think about it from the banks perspective, every time they loan money out they take money from bank wallet and give it to somebody else to return later, ie, a deposit with somebody else. The 100 goes to bank A who then loans 80 to bank B leaving bank A with only 20 (which they can't touch anyway). The only way for bank A to retain that 80 for later use would be if they copied it before sending it to bank B (which would be money printing) which doesn't happen of course.

Bank A has the loan asset of 80... call it a copy if you like.


would you appreciate 100 bucks instead??

Nah, I can sell the promise of my arse for more.

[bogan]

Bank A has the loan asset of 80... call it a copy if you like.

It isn't a copy as they cannot do anything with it unless it is paid back. It is an asset though, which is why the money multiplier term is a thing, but it is an asset offset by a debt, and thus not an asset that is immediately accessible.

[mashman]

It isn't a copy as they cannot do anything with it unless it is paid back. It is an asset though, which is why the money multiplier term is a thing, but it is an asset offset by a debt, and thus not an asset that is immediately accessible.

You can't leverage against an asset?

[bogan]

You can't leverage against an asset?

No, because it doesn't work very well when it is offset by such a liability.

[yokel]

Nah, I can sell the promise of my arse for more.

Dan it! ok I'll have to run down to the bank and borrow some more money if I want to continue using your services haha

[Brian d marge]

Loans are bank assets, as deposits are bank liabilities; think about it from the banks perspective, every time they loan money out they take money from bank wallet and give it to somebody else to return later, ie, a deposit with somebody else. The 100 goes to bank A who then loans 80 to bank B leaving bank A with only 20 (which they can't touch anyway). The only way for bank A to retain that 80 for later use would be if they copied it before sending it to bank B (which would be money printing) which doesn't happen of course.
I have already posted a clear outline pointing out how it works

I will also post links

Also as banke moon on record as saying banks print miney

But hey dont take my word

Google money supply nz
Money creation new zealand

And fractional reserve banking

And yes debt is an asset why do you think student loans are so popular

Stephen

[bogan]

I have already posted a clear outline pointing out how it works

I will also post links

Also as banke moon on record as saying banks print miney

But hey dont take my word

Google money supply nz
Money creation new zealand

And fractional reserve banking

And yes debt is an asset why do you think student loans are so popular

Stephen

It is not clear unless you show figures as well, same goes for the links you may suggest. The figures I've shown are simple, largely self explanatory, and not ones you can contradict; interpretations of the whole kabang are, well, often open to interpretation.

[mashman]

No, because it doesn't work very well when it is offset by such a liability.

One of the reasons austrian school economists have issues with FRB ;)

[Brian d marge]

It is not clear unless you show figures as well, same goes for the links you may suggest. The figures I've shown are simple, largely self explanatory, and not ones you can contradict; interpretations of the whole kabang are, well, often open to interpretation.
See my post about interest

There maybe something in the budget rbnz but im on a smartphone in dennys . . .

B moon ill try and find now

[Brian d marge]

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ThRGVLDgO8LCmQX66YDYDw&url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEC40I_RsLixV-7vqDH8EnIWMnFzw

Cant get any moredefinitive than the bank of england explaination of how money is created
All of which i have pointed out
Except the the use of loans to created new money which is then loaned out at the fractional reserve rate which in turn creates more new money
This is held in check . . .kind of
By the inflation rate
Which is why the frb introduced a new law in 2008 allowing interest to be paid on central bank reserves allowing new money toenter the system without increasing the inflation rate . ,which it would if it was just dumped or released into the economy

Which i think is clever

Unfortunately due to the removal of the glass seagal act banks can now speculate
Omg look at the stock market, . . . .
Omg look at gold and silver prices

When i get home illl try to find ban ki moon on printing . .i posted it as a reply to ocean1 about a year ago

If ya still dont believe me . ,sharp 7 even ran a clip about banks printing money

[Ocean1]

It isn't a copy as they cannot do anything with it unless it is paid back. It is an asset though, which is why the money multiplier term is a thing, but it is an asset offset by a debt, and thus not an asset that is immediately accessible.

Fuck, your forehead must be a mess by now.

[Brian d marge]

Fuck, your forehead must be a mess by now.
Its not the part which one thinks with , u may and i often use differing apendages especially in the morning
But one assume young mr b is using the correct organ

[bogan]

One of the reasons austrian school economists have issues with FRB ;)

Issues/theories etc count for naught when the numbers are so simple.


https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ThRGVLDgO8LCmQX66YDYDw&url=http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEC40I_RsLixV-7vqDH8EnIWMnFzw

Cant get any moredefinitive than the bank of england explaination of how money is created
All of which i have pointed out
Except the the use of loans to created new money which is then loaned out at the fractional reserve rate which in turn creates more new money
This is held in check . . .kind of
By the inflation rate
Which is why the frb introduced a new law in 2008 allowing interest to be paid on central bank reserves allowing new money toenter the system without increasing the inflation rate . ,which it would if it was just dumped or released into the economy


So, looking through that I think figure 1 is a good place to start. Upon loaning money to a customer the loan and deposit seemingly materialise out of thin air, at first glance that appears to contradict the FRB explanations and figures I have been giving. But, let's go back to my figures and say the bank had made that $100 profit through interest or other legit means. Holds 20 and lends 80 to the customer, who then deposits the 80 back to the bank who takes their reserve and lends the 64 back to customer and so on. You end up with the customer being loaned 400 for the bank's original 100, ie, the bank can load out value up to the money multiplier * their cash reserves.
So the simplified model is one day the bank has 100 in cash; the next it has 100 in reserves and 400 in both loans to customers and deposits from customers. On the customer side, one day they have 0, the next they have 400 in both loans from, and deposits to, the bank; as shown in the figure.
What is confusing about the figure is that they show two blocks for both parties; the first part of a loan is bank asset, customer liability; then when it is paid back the bank liability and customer asset are added to cancel out the original figures. Because both are shown there is no net asset exchange, the customer can't deposit to the bank and buy a house; or maybe the model assumes they buy a house of somebody else who uses the money to pay off their loan with a bank deposit.

It's a convoluted way of thinking that does its best to fit the figures and the idea that banks create money together. But, the bank does not create money, it merely uses leveraged lending to the illusion of creating money. It is still zero sum, and that is the telling figure, if something is created out of nothing, there would be more of it in total, and there isn't, so it isn't. I guess when talking about assets it is hard to picture a negative amount, but that is what is happening here, banks lend money they don't have (but they are owed), not money they create.


Fuck, your forehead must be a mess by now.

I'm a fairly patient man, and Brian d marge is making me both learn and better understand some stuff I wouldn't otherwise know.

[Brian d marge]

Go and read the link rather than wasting ur time

[bogan]

Go and read the link rather than wasting ur time

Why do you think I didn't? I even refered to one of the figures within it.

[Brian d marge]

Why do you think I didn't? I even refered to one of the figures within it.
Fooled me
Scurries back to check , .


By the way thank u


Fk ya did to

Stupid phone . . , cheap wine nnot sure whixch

[bogan]

Well I think we all understand the simple example of FRB, and it is perhaps the wider implementation of it that is giving headches. So look at it from another point of view, a hypothetical WRB system (wizard reserve banking) in which banks can get money from thin air. transaction 1: 100 deposited, 80 lent out, 20 put in reserve. transaction 2: 64 lent out, 16 in reserve; see the difference? if banks could get money from thin air there is no need for banks to have the deposit liability. Or in the fig 1 case, bank only gets the loan box, deposit is gone as a liability free wizard can just magic up some dosh. In both those cases the sum is no longer equal to the starting capital; that is the mark of money being introduced from unknown (thin air) sources.

PS: that doc is a bit heavy for a wine night init?

[Brian d marge]

Na i can only get my head around open university after fourteen pints of lager hhhaaaaa and it was my lunch break

[Brian d marge]

Well I think we all understand the simple example of FRB, and it is perhaps the wider implementation of it that is giving headches. So look at it from another point of view, a hypothetical WRB system (wizard reserve banking) in which banks can get money from thin air. transaction 1: 100 deposited, 80 lent out, 20 put in reserve. transaction 2: 64 lent out, 16 in reserve; see the difference? if banks could get money from thin air there is no need for banks to have the deposit liability. Or in the fig 1 case, bank only gets the loan box, deposit is gone as a liability free wizard can just magic up some dosh. In both those cases the sum is no longer equal to the starting capital; that is the mark of money being introduced from unknown (thin air) sources.

PS: that doc is a bit heavy for a wine night init?
If i have understood that correctly

Yes
But all hell is and will breakloose

People would get well pissed off so the powers that be make up some billshyt rules to make it look like some one is looking after them

One thing that i have thought is the whole system seems set up for weatlth asset transfer

[mashman]

Issues/theories etc count for naught when the numbers are so simple.




No, because it doesn't work very well when it is offset by such a liability.

S'ok when it suits your argument though ;).

Look, I get your example (even though it takes the banking out of FRB), however you're denying that any new money has been created



The expansion of $100 of central bank money through fractional-reserve lending with a 20% reserve rate. $400 of commercial bank money is created virtually through loans.

[bogan]

S'ok when it suits your argument though ;).

Look, I get your example (even though it takes the banking out of FRB), however you're denying that any new money has been created

Ok, I'll fill in the numbers for that one. Assets of 100 is $100 of leveragable assets. Assets of 100 and liabilities of 100 is $0 of net leverageable assets (yeh I know it isn't that simple in practice but the general rule is followed).

Because it has not, the characteristic of new money being created is that the total increases as per the WRB example. Commercial bank money is total funds the bank is applying interest to etc, it is not the total funds available which is base money. Money printing increases the base money, and thus the total, FRB increases the commercial bank money but not the total. Commercial bank money cannot be used in an endless cycle to create more of itself due to limits imposed by the govt.

[mashman]

Ban on 64,000 Auckland woodburners (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25310070/ban-on-64-000-auckland-woodburners/)
bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa. To counteract the ever increasing number of cars plobably.


Hong Kong officials, democracy protesters hold first talks (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/25310063/hong-kong-leader-democracy-would-see-poor-people-dominate-vote/)... My fave part being: "Chief executive Leung Chun-ying, in an interview late Monday, said open elections for his successor as demanded by demonstrators would result in the largest sector of society -- the city's poor -- dominating the electoral process." :killingme and he still says that it's democratic :killingme. At least the west has the dignity to price people out of the elections.

[mashman]

Ok, I'll fill in the numbers for that one. Assets of 100 is $100 of leveragable assets. Assets of 100 and liabilities of 100 is $0 of net leverageable assets (yeh I know it isn't that simple in practice but the general rule is followed).

Because it has not, the characteristic of new money being created is that the total increases as per the WRB example. Commercial bank money is total funds the bank is applying interest to etc, it is not the total funds available which is base money. Money printing increases the base money, and thus the total, FRB increases the commercial bank money but not the total. Commercial bank money cannot be used in an endless cycle to create more of itself due to limits imposed by the govt.

All of the loaned assets are still in play. If they are left alone then yes, it is a zero sum game and all money can be repaid as long as everyone repays it and doesn't have 1 under the bed for a rainy day... however we're talking about banks lol.

Maybe you should tell the wiki folks. If an asset can be leveraged, which it can (albeit risky as you point out), then you can pluck as much money from the air as you like... indeed that initial 100 has to have come from a bank.

[bogan]

All of the loaned assets are still in play. If they are left alone then yes, it is a zero sum game and all money can be repaid as long as everyone repays it and doesn't have 1 under the bed for a rainy day... however we're talking about banks lol.

Maybe you should tell the wiki folks. If an asset can be leveraged, which it can (albeit risky as you point out), then you can pluck as much money from the air as you like... indeed that initial 100 has to have come from a bank.

They are, and economically this is deemed a 'good thing'.

That initial $100 comes from the central bank, it is base money, and yes it has been printed from thin air at the govt's behest. The $400 worth of commercial bank money (bank assets) it can be multiplied to with FRB cannot be used to secure a loan proportional to that value of assets because loans are not given that way, the debt is taken into account. It is like getting a second home mortgage; the amount you can get depends not on the value of your assets (house) but on its equity (house value - debt on first mortgage). So no, you cannot leverage an asset which does not have a sum value greater than 0.
So we still come back to the conclusion that banks cannot create money from nothing.

What they do however, is create their money from our money; it is a form of taxation, not money printing. That is why it is in the banks interest to make fullest use of the money multiplier, because this increases the transaction count per dollar, the money velocity. Think of GST as the example, spend a dollar once and the govt gets 15c, increase the money velocity and spend it 10 times and the govt ends up with 80c of that. The sum total has not changed, that is still the key thing to focus on when you talk about money printing; a greater sum total when all debts/assets have been accounted for is money printing, the same sum total but distributed differently is taxation (or normal trade, obviously).

[mashman]

Sikorski U-turn: Polish ex-FM backtracks on scandalous 'divide Ukraine' claim (http://rt.com/news/197984-politico-putin-tusk-sikorski/)... ooooooo's been a naughty boy then

[mashman]

They are, and economically this is deemed a 'good thing'.

That initial $100 comes from the central bank, it is base money, and yes it has been printed from thin air at the govt's behest. The $400 worth of commercial bank money (bank assets) it can be multiplied to with FRB cannot be used to secure a loan proportional to that value of assets because loans are not given that way, the debt is taken into account. It is like getting a second home mortgage; the amount you can get depends not on the value of your assets (house) but on its equity (house value - debt on first mortgage). So no, you cannot leverage an asset which does not have a sum value greater than 0.
So we still come back to the conclusion that banks cannot create money from nothing.

What they do however, is create their money from our money; it is a form of taxation, not money printing. That is why it is in the banks interest to make fullest use of the money multiplier, because this increases the transaction count per dollar, the money velocity. Think of GST as the example, spend a dollar once and the govt gets 15c, increase the money velocity and spend it 10 times and the govt ends up with 80c of that. The sum total has not changed, that is still the key thing to focus on when you talk about money printing; a greater sum total when all debts/assets have been accounted for is money printing, the same sum total but distributed differently is taxation (or normal trade, obviously).

A little debt is a good thing eh.


That initial $100 comes from the central bank, it is base money, and yes it has been printed from thin air



So we still come back to the conclusion that banks cannot create money from nothing.

Does not compute.

Found in an IMF working paper: "Bank reserves held at the central bank have also generally been negligible in size, except of course after the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. But this quantitative point is far less important than the recognition that they do not play any meaningful role in the determination of wider monetary aggregates. The reason is that the �deposit multiplier� of the undergraduate economics textbook, where monetary aggregates are created at the initiative of the central bank, through an initial injection of high-powered money into the banking system that gets multiplied through bank lending, turns the actual operation of the monetary transmission mechanism on its head. This should be absolutely clear under the current inflation targeting regime, where the central bank controls an interest rate and must be willing to supply as many reserves as banks demand at that rate. But as shown by Kydland and Prescott (1990), the availability of central bank reserves did not even constrain banks during the period, in the 1970s and 1980s, when the central bank did in fact officially target monetary aggregates.9 These authors show that broad monetary aggregates, which are driven by banks� lending decisions, led the economic cycle, while narrow monetary aggregates, most importantly reserves, lagged the cycle. In other words, at all times, when banks ask for reserves, the central bank obliges. Reserves therefore impose no constraint. The deposit multiplier is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth.10 And because of this, private banks are almost fully in control of the money creation process."

[bogan]

A little debt is a good thing eh.





Does not compute.

Found in an IMF working paper: "Bank reserves held at the central bank have also generally been negligible in size, except of course after the onset of the 2008 financial crisis. But this quantitative point is far less important than the recognition that they do not play any meaningful role in the determination of wider monetary aggregates. The reason is that the �deposit multiplier� of the undergraduate economics textbook, where monetary aggregates are created at the initiative of the central bank, through an initial injection of high-powered money into the banking system that gets multiplied through bank lending, turns the actual operation of the monetary transmission mechanism on its head. This should be absolutely clear under the current inflation targeting regime, where the central bank controls an interest rate and must be willing to supply as many reserves as banks demand at that rate. But as shown by Kydland and Prescott (1990), the availability of central bank reserves did not even constrain banks during the period, in the 1970s and 1980s, when the central bank did in fact officially target monetary aggregates.9 These authors show that broad monetary aggregates, which are driven by banks� lending decisions, led the economic cycle, while narrow monetary aggregates, most importantly reserves, lagged the cycle. In other words, at all times, when banks ask for reserves, the central bank obliges. Reserves therefore impose no constraint. The deposit multiplier is simply, in the words of Kydland and Prescott (1990), a myth.10 And because of this, private banks are almost fully in control of the money creation process."

Yup. The 10k debt I owe on engineering gear has allowed me to produce vastly more production that I have to pay in servicing that debt. If debt was restricted to 0, so would my production be.

Perhaps it doesn't compute because you cut out the part where I pointed out it was the govt that allowed the printing of money, please be truthful in your quotes.

Note the almost part in your other quote, that is pointing out they are still required to get the govt to create money; the opinion of the writers is likely just that either that approval will be given, or that the banks operate far enough away from the limit is does not apply. Like I said before, opinions are many, varied, and open to interpretation; the numbers simply show us how something works. And all of the numbers I've put up show how banks cannot print money under FRB, and no numbers have been put up showing otherwise.

[mashman]

Yup. The 10k debt I owe on engineering gear has allowed me to produce vastly more production that I have to pay in servicing that debt. If debt was restricted to 0, so would my production be.

Perhaps it doesn't compute because you cut out the part where I pointed out it was the govt that allowed the printing of money, please be truthful in your quotes.

Note the almost part in your other quote, that is pointing out they are still required to get the govt to create money; the opinion of the writers is likely just that either that approval will be given, or that the banks operate far enough away from the limit is does not apply. Like I said before, opinions are many, varied, and open to interpretation; the numbers simply show us how something works. And all of the numbers I've put up show how banks cannot print money under FRB, and no numbers have been put up showing otherwise.

There will always be debt where there is a financial system.

It has nothing to do with the govt as banks can print what they like when they like irrespective of who asks for it. Doing so in accordance within "acceptable" guidelines is a courtesy, not a requirement.

I did note the almost and as I said above that almost is because of courtesy. No money, no FRB.

[bogan]

It has nothing to do with the govt as banks can print what they like when they like irrespective of who asks for it.

Please show with a numerical example how this is the case, I have clearly shown how it is not so I would like to correct your choice of that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to examine increases in M1, M2 etc (deposits/loans etc) with those in M0/MB (actual money, printed by the govt).

[mashman]

Please show with a numerical example how this is the case, I have clearly shown how it is not so I would like to correct your choice of that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to examine increases in M1, M2 etc (deposits/loans etc) with those in M0/MB (actual money, printed by the govt).

If you insist. (http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand)

[bogan]

If you insist. (http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/newzealand)

That is national debt, and it does not support the idea of banks being able to print money.

[MisterD]

<blockquote>It has <b>everything</b> to do with the govt as <b>central</b> banks can print what they like when they like irrespective of who asks for it.</blockquote>

Fixxored etc.

[unstuck]

http://www.cutthespread.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/fed-print-money.jpg

[mashman]

That is national debt, and it does not support the idea of banks being able to print money.

Debt is printed.

[bogan]

Debt is printed.

Seems you've run to the end of your tether, I can hope you'll learn from this as you did from the anti-semitism lecture you got a while ago, but I shall not hold my breath; still, seems like a few others did learn some things so all is not a waste.

Will leave you with this (http://inflationdata.com/articles/2011/09/17/money-multiplier/) though, despite being able to lend out so much more, banks in US chose to keep the M0-M1 money multiplier below 1 after the GFC. Seems like the actions of those worried about their liquid reserves, doesn't seem like the actions of those who could pull liquid reserves out of thin air any time they chose.

I've shown the mechanism, I've shown its working, I've show the historical data; all you've shown is your bias. Game, set, match; mashy.

[oldrider]

There is a subtle difference between printing money and creating money via book entries the latter is almost limitless!

[Brian d marge]

Please show with a numerical example how this is the case, I have clearly shown how it is not so I would like to correct your choice of that conclusion. Perhaps you would like to examine increases in M1, M2 etc (deposits/loans etc) with those in M0/MB (actual money, printed by the govt).

I dont think you are going to find *printed money* on the balance sheets ....They DO do it as a way of keeping the inflation rate between 2 and 3 %

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JBZWw1DG8zU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank_of_New_Zealand

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m1

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

here is a link to fractional reserve , showing the limiting effect of , a money multiplier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

on the last link towards the end it explains how the reserve bank pays interest on the overnight deposits , this is how the * printed money * enters the system

Ive given u numbers , and a video And official documentation .

the rest is up to to u

Stephen

[bogan]

There is a subtle difference between printing money and creating money via book entries the latter is almost limitless!

Indeed, the subtlety is the latter is that it is zero sum, and thus not a creation at all, simply a series of I.O.U.s


I dont think you are going to find *printed money* on the balance sheets ....They DO do it as a way of keeping the inflation rate between 2 and 3 %

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JBZWw1DG8zU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Bank_of_New_Zealand

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m1

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

on the last link towards the end it explains how the reserve bank pays interest on the overnight deposits , this is how the * printed money * enters the system

Ive given u numbers , and a video And official documentation .

the rest is up to to u

Stephen

The 'they' is not commercial banks though is it.

And that 'printed money' entering the system comes vis the govt bank, not commercial banks. It is the govt bank, and the economic policy that govern how much money is printed either directly, or 'printed' by adjusting things like the OCR.

I know money is printed, I know the RBNZ controls inflation rates etc, I know banks use base money to create significantly more money in the form of commercial bank money; these things we agree on yes? I also know that commercial banks are limited in how they 'create' money, it does not come from thin air and thus without limit; do you understand that a bank getting interest overnight from the RBNZ is govt controlled, and limited?

[Brian d marge]

Indeed, the subtlety is the latter is that it is zero sum, and thus not a creation at all, simply a series of I.O.U.s



The 'they' is not commercial banks though is it.

And that 'printed money' entering the system comes vis the govt bank, not commercial banks. It is the govt bank, and the economic policy that govern how much money is printed either directly, or 'printed' by adjusting things like the OCR.

I know money is printed, I know the RBNZ controls inflation rates etc, I know banks use base money to create significantly more money in the form of commercial bank money; these things we agree on yes? I also know that commercial banks are limited in how they 'create' money, it does not come from thin air and thus without limit; do you understand that a bank getting interest overnight from the RBNZ is govt controlled, and limited?

Yes to all , if it wasnt limited I would be wallpapering my house with Barundi dinar


but the very nature of fractional reserve creates , up to a limit , due to that required reserve a money multiplier effect is created and that money is NEW money , not backed by anything , but created by the movement or the energy of money . As is the interest charged on the newly created money

now the interest , I know is the cost of money based upon risk

but it introduce interest and the money supply becomes an open system , a system not in equilibrium and I THINK open to the laws of entropy , where as the system expands , internal energy tends towards zero , ie the energy , purchasing power of money declines until it worthless .

Finally MOST people use the shorthand that money is printed , out of thin air . but its created by the use of a service ....( commercial banks )

either way the result is the same and its all just a big wealth transference scheme all the above is IMHO

fkers

Stephen

[Ocean1]

but the very nature of fractional reserve creates , up to a limit , due to that required reserve a money multiplier effect is created and that money is NEW money , not backed by anything

Any new money put into circulation with no connection to a realisable asset is inflation on a stick. In terms of the overall size of the economy it's tiny, and it's sole use is to heat up a sluggish economy, it's the opposite to tightening lending criteria.

This is where mushbrains gets his "money from fresh air" fixation. If there was any unsecured loans available I'm pretty sure I'd be in the queue.

In the real world if there was no fractional reserve system the quantity of existing deposits would be the only money available to lend, just 17% of what's currently available. Almost all of that 83% extra are mortgages.

[Brian d marge]

Any new money put into circulation with no connection to a realisable asset is inflation on a stick. In terms of the overall size of the economy it's tiny, and it's sole use is to heat up a sluggish economy, it's the opposite to tightening lending criteria.

This is where mushbrains gets his "money from fresh air" fixation. If there was any unsecured loans available I'm pretty sure I'd be in the queue.

In the real world if there was no fractional reserve system the quantity of existing deposits would be the only money available to lend, just 17% of what's currently available. Almost all of that 83% extra are mortgages.
Yup and this is why some disagree with fractional

While iagree with mashy . . I diifer in that i would like ti see a non debt based money

Zero interest


But thats for another day

[bogan]

Yes to all , if it wasnt limited I would be wallpapering my house with Barundi dinar


but the very nature of fractional reserve creates , up to a limit , due to that required reserve a money multiplier effect is created and that money is NEW money , not backed by anything , but created by the movement or the energy of money . As is the interest charged on the newly created money

now the interest , I know is the cost of money based upon risk

but it introduce interest and the money supply becomes an open system , a system not in equilibrium and I THINK open to the laws of entropy , where as the system expands , internal energy tends towards zero , ie the energy , purchasing power of money declines until it worthless .

Finally MOST people use the shorthand that money is printed , out of thin air . but its created by the use of a service ....( commercial banks )

either way the result is the same and its all just a big wealth transference scheme all the above is IMHO

fkers

Stephen

The movement is the backing though, any 'new' money asset is backed by its corresponding debt as the money moves about. The interest on that is kind of like RUC, not taxing the existence, but taxing the movement; and like trucks, a new one is not made every time it is moved.

Yeh that entropy is inflation, but like debt, inflation can be healthy in the right amount. And also like debt, it can be avoided if you so chose (put your money in gold etc).

[mashman]

Seems you've run to the end of your tether, I can hope you'll learn from this as you did from the anti-semitism lecture you got a while ago, but I shall not hold my breath; still, seems like a few others did learn some things so all is not a waste.

Will leave you with this (http://inflationdata.com/articles/2011/09/17/money-multiplier/) though, despite being able to lend out so much more, banks in US chose to keep the M0-M1 money multiplier below 1 after the GFC. Seems like the actions of those worried about their liquid reserves, doesn't seem like the actions of those who could pull liquid reserves out of thin air any time they chose.

I've shown the mechanism, I've shown its working, I've show the historical data; all you've shown is your bias. Game, set, match; mashy.

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... it was the only answer needed.

Thanks for the link and I hope you won't be offended that I don't read it.

And yet you still deny that money is created out of nothing. You're right, you win.

[Ocean1]

Yup and this is why some disagree with fractional

Because they don't think other people should borrow so much? None of their business I'd have thought.

Seems far more likely they just can't see past the idea that banks are getting money "for nothing", which is fiscal gibberish.


While iagree with mashy . . I diifer in that i would like ti see a non debt based money

Zero interest

I'm sure most people with mortgages would agree, just not if it meant having to live in a house worth 87% less than their current one. Those with savings would probably be less happy.

Which I guess is the real point, the tinfoil hat brigade rant about the evel banks "printing money" but the driver of all that debt is average kiwis, happy to borrow as much as they have based on their own confidence in their ability to service that debt. Who the fuck else has the right to tell them they shouldn't do so?

[mashman]

This is where mushbrains gets his "money from fresh air" fixation.

No he doesn't. Try again... but alas, as you are unfamiliar with what money actually is, as you are limited by the definition you are taught, I don't hold out hope that you'll come even remotely close to understanding where I get my "money from fresh air" fixation from.

[Ocean1]

No he doesn't. Try again... but alas, as you are unfamiliar with what money actually is, as you are limited by the definition you are taught, I don't hold out hope that you'll come even remotely close to understanding where I get my "money from fresh air" fixation from.

'Praps you could explain again how there's no link between resources/assets and money, that's bound to be more entertaining than corro st.

'Cause that'd fix all of the world's problems, eh? Just print enough money to pay for anything anyone wants. But only for shit you approve of, eh?

Fuck you're a loser, just accept that you've been shown to be a financially illiterate blowhard, (again), focus on managing your own cash to the best of your pitiable ability and let everyone else worry about theirs, eh?

[bogan]

And yet you still deny that money is created out of nothing. You're right, you win.

Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest of that is correct though.

[mashman]

'Praps you could explain again how there's no link between resources/assets and money, that's bound to be more entertaining than corro st.

'Cause that'd fix all of the world's problems, eh? Just print enough money to pay for anything anyone wants. But only for shit you approve of, eh?

Fuck you're a loser, just accept that you've been shown to be a financially illiterate blowhard, (again), focus on managing your own cash to the best of your pitiable ability and let everyone else worry about theirs, eh?

:killingme... the fact that you say there is a link is enough for there to be a link.

Nope. No need for money to address wants and what will be produced will not be a decision for me to make... unless of course I choose to use my time and be productive.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... keep clingin to them security blanket definitions scared old white man, coz they ain't gonna be there forever as "my" guys are on the way to show you just how retarded you are.


Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest is correct though.

If you say.

[mashman]

Point of order, I deny that money is created out of nothing by commercial banks. The rest of that is correct though.

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."

[Akzle]

all money is debt. Fuck that jew shit.

[bogan]

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them? :scratch:

[Brian d marge]

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them? :scratch:
Ya money multiplier would be . . .1

[mashman]

If commercial banks could create money out of nothing, how would raising the reserve requirement up to 100% stop them? :scratch:

Damned fine question... aaaaaaaaaaand the answer is, drum roll please, doing so in accordance with "specified" guidelines is a courtesy, not a requirement. It's all confidence/perspective. If you, not just you, are confident that banks stick to the "rules", then your perception is that banks stick to the rules and no matter who states otherwise, you know better. That's not a dig as I can level the exact same statement at myself. If money has to be created then the laws/rules/regulations etc... don't matter, because a reason will be found as always. If anything the recent bank scandals have proven just that, and that's just the scandals we know about. In regards to the bank bailout due to the GFC, it was a PR exercise (not the GFC, but the need for the bailout) to underline confidence/perspective in the laws/rules/regulations, coz they really don't have to given that they hold all of the keys to all of the doors so to speak (the ability to make or break any country, let alone individual). Ludicrous explanation eh? yet I see it as quite obvious given the economic commentary on money creation.

[Brian d marge]

I know I shouldn't, but there's no lulz at the moment:

Herman Daly:

Something that Mr D'Marge will likely agree with:

"Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt—we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements."

And just to underline the above in regards to commercial banks for sage bogan:

"In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion? The best answer I have received is that the great depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest."
It would be a start but gold is debt

The system i would like tosee would be debt free

Bitcoin????? A tally stick

2 rocks at differing distances from the village

[bogan]

Ya moneymultiplierwould be . . .1

Yeh but a monmey multiplier only applies when you are creating money out of other money; ie, you need something to multiply, he is talking about creating it out of nothing.


Damned fine question... aaaaaaaaaaand the answer is, drum roll please, doing so in accordance with "specified" guidelines is a courtesy, not a requirement. It's all confidence/perspective. If you, not just you, are confident that banks stick to the "rules", then your perception is that banks stick to the rules and no matter who states otherwise, you know better. That's not a dig as I can level the exact same statement at myself. If money has to be created then the laws/rules/regulations etc... don't matter. If anything the recent bank scandals have proven just that, and that's just the scandals we know about. In regards to the bank bailout due to the GFC, it was a PR exercise (not the GFC, but the need for the bailout) to underline confidence/perspective in the laws/rules/regulations, coz they really don't have to given that they hold all of the keys to all of the doors so to speak (the ability to make or break any country, let alone individual). Ludicrous explanation eh? yet I see it as quite obvious given the economic commentary on money creation.

So, what you're saying is it would make no change in that regard.

[Brian d marge]

Ya money multiplier would be . . .1
And the key word is fiat

Fat i talian at table

[Brian d marge]

As an aside whydoesnt this suprise me
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29715044

[mashman]

So, what you're saying is it would make no change in that regard.

Yup, it'll make no real discernible difference. If the money is needed it will be created by hook or by crook... most likely the latter :laugh:

[bogan]

Yup, it'll make no real discernible difference. If the money is needed it will be created by hook or by crook... most likely the latter :laugh:

So if it will make no difference, what point were you trying to make? :scratch:

[mashman]

As an aside whydoesnt this suprise me
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29715044

I reckon Russian intelligence told ISIS where the drop was going to be :eek:

[mashman]

So if it will make no difference, what point were you trying to make? :scratch:

None that you chose to accept as valid... hence why I wholly advocate an R.B.E.

[Brian d marge]

I reckon Russian intelligence told ISIS where the drop was going to be :eek:
And the republicans aregoing to win the elections

Or someone is trying to park 20 billion

Ten year bonds took a bit of unexplained dive the other day

Someone knows somethin

And it aint the people who need it the most . . .us

Max was right . . Off with their heads and zero money or debt free for the poorest

[bogan]

None

Usual story eh mashy, I'll still keep checking in though, just in case in you use logic instead of emotion to make a point.

[mashman]

It would be a start but gold is debt

The system i would like tosee would be debt free

Bitcoin????? A tally stick

2 rocks at differing distances from the village

An R.B.E. perhaps :laugh:. If gold is debt, then so it a tallystick, or rock distance, or tits, or hammers etc... Value a resource by its potential outcome and you'll have a debt free system, because, imho, as soon as you measure the value of a resource by some perceived financial ROI, then yer fecked, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life. How many cracks have we had at a sustainable financial system?

[mashman]

Usual story eh mashy, I'll still keep checking in though, just in case in you use logic instead of emotion to make a point.

Thanks for proving the point.

[mashman]

And the republicans aregoing to win the elections

Or someone is trying to park 20 billion

Ten year bonds took a bit of unexplained dive the other day

Someone knows somethin

And it aint the people who need it the most . . .us

Max was right . . Off with their heads and zero money or debt free for the poorest

lol, nah, the democrats will lose the election... although having said that and given some of the republican right whinge ideals and the u.s. economy, I wonder if it'll be a case of NZ all over again. Nah lol.

lol, Prof Fekete did a damned fine job of explaining the issue.

[yokel]

As an aside whydoesnt this suprise me
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29715044

looks like they got that "humanitarian aid" air drop that they so desperately need.
it's hard to fight a war by yourself I guess

[Brian d marge]

lol, nah, the democrats will lose the election... although having said that and given some of the republican right whinge ideals and the u.s. economy, I wonder if it'll be a case of NZ all over again. Nah lol.

lol, Prof Fekete did a damned fine job of explaining the issue.

U buy bonds when safety is required

so, either europe is worse and us bonds look good to some one

and i mean someone as it was a spike

Oil, the sandpeople in saudi land are price cutting to force some others out of the market

The stock-market is heading for a crash

or ISIS are hiding the oil money ......

Fkin dodgy baskets the lot of em

Old Fekete was a laugh......Max should have let him speak!!!

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

fk the world has gone tits up

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10650330/Auckland-ditches-giant-Santa-Claus


sad

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Go Russell.......
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0Ut1xplin0o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Stephen