Stupid World

[Scuba_Steve]

[avgas]

lets show the dirty fuckers, stop using banks.

I prefer to think of it as "re-balancing the free market"

[Brian d marge]

lets show the dirty fuckers, stop using banks.

a lot of people are already doing just that

Stephen

[BoristheBiter]

I prefer to think of it as "re-balancing the free market"

a lot of people are already doing just that

Stephen

They get fuck all out of me as i don't owe anything as I pay everything with a CC, and pay it all off before the due date.
I didn't think it made all that much of a difference until someone said look at the difference between what I'm being charged and what interest i am earning. works out they pay me to have my money there.

(disclosure statement :this does not include any mortgage repayments)

[husaberg]

I didn't. My contention was that the money is loaned against an asset. Try borrowing money without collateral. So as soon as the loan's made the money represents that asset. Pretty straight forward innit?

So yes, the money is generated as debt, at the agreement of a borrower, but it's accounted against a tangible asset.

I think your missing the point although the money may well be lent against a tangible asset, but the "money" they so graciously lend you and accumulate vast revenue against is actually plucked from thin air..........

I have done, albeit some years ago. It didn't unduly alarm me then, any observation involving huge numbers generates further huge numbers, and I don't see their profit necessarily has to be in the same order of magnitude as mine. I may look again if I get time.

You might see the profits are vast, the costs are low, the income is obscene, its money for jam without first buying the fruit........and a captive market to boot Not only that when it goes pear shaped the financiers get bailed out (cause if the system fails, so does the worlds economy supposedly LOL)and what do they do with the bailout oh wait just give them selves huge pay rises.....

Not this middle class member it isn't. I'm nowhere near silly enough to borrow money against a depreciating asset.

never had a mortgage Ocean do your kids? what about their kids........

And the funny thing about compound interest is it's exponential growth. Isn't that what you'd expect to see in wealthy people's investments? Maybe that's not fair, but I'm not convinced that growth is at the unwarranted expense of the middle classes simply because they're the ones borrowing all the money.

They are not wealthy peoples investments, They are wealthy individuals investments that, "are created from thin air", that are returning huge returns at the cost to all of society.

[mashman]

Nope. You're going to have to explain how I'm responsible for someone else's behaviour better that that, it makes no sense.

Try this... cept it ain't as subtle.

Don't recall ever complaining about any particular change, it's not "my" market, and I'm hardly unique in believing that a different set of controls on the economy would produce betterer results, pretty much everyone want it's shape different to what it currently is. Are they all fooling themselves? Have we tried my flavours any time recently?

Sounds like you've been leaping to conclusions again.

Didn't say you were complaining, just saying that you claim that certain "things" remove money from the market/economy and that there would be betterer results should those policy's be implemented. And if those shape seekers are going to be dependent on financial policy then you can bet yaw sweet ass that they're fooling themselves. Thousands of years have gone by and it still hasn't worked. If your flavours have been tried at all, then they have been deemed to have failed and will have been removed for that purpose. By the looks of things the "bludger" is due for a kicking at the hands of a society that is tired with their lazyness/lack of effort etc... and much to my amusement. Society is kicking the wrong people.

Or you may have been putting words in my mouth again?

And yet the vast majority of people do accept those uses and conventions. That's what defines conventions, innit? And the fact that the system behaves pretty much as people expect sorta proves them right.

That has to be one of my favourites yet... the vast majority eh. The vast majority don't care how the system works and they just keep on keeping on. But by all means go ahead and claim the vast majority... however, and from experience, those that I have spoken with in regards to where money comes from are generally shocked that that is the case. In exactly the same way, they understand NOW when it is explained to them and their questions are answered. Oddly enough, the majority of those people don't speak for everyone else in such confident terms as yourself, probably because they realise that not everyone has the knowledge that they have, or perhaps they just aren't up themselves as much as you are.

It's a mechanism to allow borrowers access to more money than is currently available. Why should the money be treaded any differently to the bank's deposits? It's used to buy goods worth exactly the same and the debt is exactly as real.

And as I've told you before nobody's forcing you to borrow the money from fractional reserve servers. Anything you willingly agree to is a bit difficult to later argue is some sort of ripoff.

Sigh. The economy is the sum total of the value produced by it's people. Not the people themselves. Money = value, not people. No quantity of "people" will cause money to be created without they produce something of value.

So claiming that looking after people will automatically cause an economy's value to increase is nonsense. Whereas it's pretty obvious that an economy that's people are producing more value has more to spend on welfare.

Dots all straight?

It shouldn't be. It has all pulled out of someone's arse at some point... calling them deposits only extends the metaphor of just how shit the system is. Where does the debt end up given that it can't be repaid?

Of course I can call rip off retrospectively. There's been a few examples of financial conmen outed recently... not to mention the Libor rate and financial insurances etc... There are even commissions setup to regulate such behaviour from taking place ...

WFF... extrapolate the rest yourself.

What is your definition of value? Are you saying that higher GDP equates to better welfare? coz I might just wee myself if that's the case and I'd be betting that you believed in the theory of trickle down.

Not even remotely.

Is self evident, Shirley. Non-productive behaviour? Failure to produce anything of value to the economy?

Like bankers you mean? Oh and those who produce $2 toys? Or middlemen that clip the ticket? Or the "rent-seekers"? Coz almost 100% of the welfare payment goes back into the economy.

Maintain a standard of living commensurate with their income.

Poor management or unrealistic lifestyle expectations.

Good start. At least to tertiary level. Specialisation can pay for itself, it don't need society's help.

You mean with your enforced remuneration?

Unrealistic? so you're still writing people off because of what they have accomplished so far... disappointing.

Nah, all the way... after all society is supposed to be the beneficiary, why clip the wings and rule out those who prudently decide not to take on any debt?

And given the extent of your investment in them it's unlikely anyone ever will.

Of course... you don't hear the answers you expect, so therefore they can't make any sense to anyone. Wholly untrue, but if it helps you deal with not being able to comprehend how a NOW would work, then by all means keep on fumbling at self-validating reasons that a NOW cannot succeed.

[Ocean1]

I think your missing the point although the money may well be lent against a tangible asset, but the "money" they so graciously lend you and accumulate vast revenue against is actually plucked from thin air...........

Yes. Again, would you rather that only money saved by individuals was available to borrow?

And again:

Isn't it at least as valid to say fiat money is created in response to demand from borrowers? And charged at such a rate as to minimise inflation? The other way around is what the health industry call a provider driven market. They tend to occur in the absence of a genuine free market.

And yet again, in spite of what mate Stephen says if that were the case you wouldn’t have a mortgage. Is that your preference? Because I don’t see anyone offering believable alternatives, here.

Anyone so upset about the practice always has the option of borrowing money from another source, there's a few co-ops still around, the mafia will gladly help you out... Or your distaste for the system might even lead you to the conclusion that if it's unethical to loan fiat money in particular then it's at least as unethical to borrow it.

Isn’t the point that people want to borrow more money than is available? Should the government or the banks offer it at special low rates because somehow it doesn’t exist?

You might see the profits are vast, the costs are low, the income is obscene, its money for jam without first buying the fruit........and a captive market to boot Not only that when it goes pear shaped the financiers get bailed out (cause if the system fails, so does the worlds economy supposedly LOL)and what do they do with the bailout oh wait just give them selves huge pay rises.....

I might. In which case I’d be certain to find their market was, as you suggest being manipulated to isolate it from competition. Funny how those all for state control come over all free market when it’s their money being spent.
Is it my imagination or are the more left leaning of our citizens more likely to be hollering for more and cheaper access to capital funds?

I don’t approve of publicly funded bailouts, but I must say in some circumstances there’s every chance that the cost of not doing it might be higher. What then? Shave the extra off the economy to maintain your principles?

Nah, mate, there’s far too many signatures on mortgages to suggest the majority don’t want to borrow money at the market rate. Because that’s what dictates the cost, innit? not the bank’s profit requirements, not some esoteric assessment of what’s “fair”, it’s how much the borrowers agree to pay.

never had a mortgage Ocean do your kids? what about their kids.........

Yep. I got all grumpy when floating interest rates went over 19%, so I reduced significantly my exposure to that particular market.

My kids have it way, way better than that, but they still get advice they don’t want from me about it on a fairly regular basis.

They are not wealthy peoples investments, They are wealthy individuals investments that, "are created from thin air", that are returning huge returns at the cost to all of society.

You can look at it that way if you like. Sounds way too bitter and corrosive an outlook for me, but I’ve got an inbuilt phobia of anything that smacks too much of jealousy.

And it’s a cost society agreed to pay. You can tell, their signature is on the loan documents. If you’ve got different ideas about what should dictate interest rates other than inflation let’s hear them.

[husaberg]

Yes. Again, would you rather that only money saved by individuals was available to borrow?

Ocean using your own fuzzy logic seeing as it is ok to invent capital in order to make a same profit on lending money on something that is real and tangible.
IE Lend money plucked from thin air and lend it it against something that is real and tangible.
Why not then if it is profitable to loan real money at say 10%pa against a real asset?
Would it not be conversely equality profitable to lend 10 times the money plucked from thin air against a tangible asset at 1%

And yet again, in spite of what mate Stephen says if that were the case you wouldn’t have a mortgage. Is that your preference? Because I don’t see anyone offering believable alternatives, here.

In an idea world people would earn enough to save in order to buy possessions there would be no lawyers no need for accountants either...........

I don’t approve of publicly funded bailouts, but I must say in some circumstances there’s every chance that the cost of not doing it might be higher. What then? Shave the extra off the economy to maintain your principles?

At least we agree on something..lol
Funny how it s the free market when it suit the bailouts would have only cost peoples investments these people generally investied in non bank guaranteed funds why should others have to pay for their greed?

Nah, mate, there’s far too many signatures on mortgages to suggest the majority don’t want to borrow money at the market rate. Because that’s what dictates the cost, innit? not the bank’s profit requirements, not some esoteric assessment of what’s “fair”, it’s how much the borrowers agree to pay.

They have no choice because there is only one system

You can look at it that way if you like. Sounds way too bitter and corrosive an outlook for me, but I’ve got an inbuilt phobia of anything that smacks too much of jealousy

No phobias in fact i used to be a farmer slightly more right wing than Genghis khan.
its just well, when you start to look at the manipulation sometimes views on subjects can change.
But shit if i could make a product that was not real and sell it for a huge profit and be sanctioned by the government to do it, would i ?
or would my principals be maintained.........

[Ocean1]

Try this... cept it ain't as subtle.

Nope, nothing in chaos theory explains how I can be responsible for anyone else's behaviour.

As for the rest, it doesn't represent an honest rebuttal to any of my statements, it's more some frantic rant triggered by long established key words.

But let me put some words in your mouth:

You want to arsehole money, because you don't like the fact that some people do better than others and you think money's the cause of it.

Fit?

Whereas I, like almost every other active member of society see it as a simple token of value. Yes almost everyone, you can tell because they use it for exactly that purpose every day.

You don't like the idea that some make more money than others, and you reckon arseholing money will fix that.

That fit?

Whereas every single person I interact with every day is perfectly happy to decide for themselves how much of their money it's worth paying for anything.

That about sum it up sport?

[Ocean1]

Ocean using your own fuzzy logic seeing as it is ok to invent capital in order to make a same profit on lending money on something that is real and tangible.
IE Lend money plucked from thin air and lend it it against something that is real and tangible.
Why not then if it is profitable to loan real money at say 10%pa against a real asset?
Would it not be conversely equality profitable to lend 10 times the money plucked from thin air against a tangible asset at 1%.

At which point savings invested would be worth 1%. How much damage are you prepared to do to the economy in order to restrict the bank's profits?

See, it's not my fuzzy logic that dictates interest rates, as I keep pointing out it's inflation. You know how that works, dude, and I might like other factors to influence interest rates too, but let's not make believe that it's unimportant or that it doesn't warrant some form of control.

In an idea world people would earn enough to save in order to buy possessions there would be no lawyers no need for accountants either...........

And everyone would have their choice of B50 CCM, SS100, NCRM16, Buell 1190RX, KTM 525 etc etc.

And you're nowhere near as silly as mashmate, so let's hear no more about how unfair it is that "people" fail to earn as much as they think they're worth.

At least we agree on something..lol
Funny how it s the free market when it suit the bailouts would have only cost peoples investments these people generally investied in non bank guaranteed funds why should others have to pay for their greed?

There's nothing free market about bailouts mate. Quite the opposite.

They have no choice because there is only one system.

They have the choice to agree a deal or not, they have that choice over multiple suppliers from several different types of organisations. You mean they don't have the choice of a cheaper rate? That's true. Could it be that that's because the NZRB is actually succeeding in controlling that rate? They'd certainly be pretty pissed if too many people got access to wholesale loans.

No phobias in fact i used to be a farmer slightly more right wing than Genghis khan.
its just well, when you start to look at the manipulation sometimes views on subjects can change.
But shit if i could make a product that was not real and sell it for a huge profit and be sanctioned by the government to do it, would i ?
or would my principals be maintained.........

Didn't say you had a phobia.

And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.

I don't actually have a problem with anyone making a profit. As long as it's not from me. And all I've got to do to achieve that wonderful state of affairs is to refrain from making deals I don't believe are very good ones.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well guess we learn't it from the UK; giving people with no clue whatsoever positions of power in Govt

[husaberg]

At which point savings invested would be worth 1%. How much damage are you prepared to do to the economy in order to restrict the bank's profits?

How much damage do the exorbitant profits do to the economy Ocean
Regardless Ocean the money invested by people would be tangible money. Th banks would just have to accept lower profits on the Draw from thin air funds they lend.
Would not people borrow more money if the interest rates were lower using your logic?

See, it's not my fuzzy logic that dictates interest rates, as I keep pointing out it's inflation. You know how that works, dude, and I might like other factors to influence interest rates too, but let's not make believe that it's unimportant or that it doesn't warrant some form of control.

Inflation is dictated by fiscal policy manipulated by lenders, But you are saying its a market self regulating economy and now you are preaching control..........

And you're nowhere near as silly as mashmate, so let's hear no more about how unfair it is that "people" fail to earn as much as they think they're worth.

Not Crying that it is unfair it is unjust that the few are manipulating the many and are being protected by the elected few to do it

They have the choice to agree a deal or not, they have that choice over multiple suppliers from several different types of organisations. You mean they don't have the choice of a cheaper rate? That's true. Could it be that that's because the NZRB is actually succeeding in controlling that rate? They'd certainly be pretty pissed if too many people got access to wholesale loans.

Didn't say you had a phobia.

Didn't say you did but you implied i was voicing my opinion cause i was a left wing extremist of sorts.

And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.

LOL of cause they are they don't always follow the OCR do they? There is no real completion either, its like the fuel cartels.

I don't actually have a problem with anyone making a profit.

Neither do i, its the exorbitant ones created from thin air trading, and the lack of tax they pay on it, plus the bail outs they drive that makes every suffer to maintain their excessive profit margins I have a issue with.
Banks need stronger regulating, Banks need real competition, as does the insurance industry, the fuel companies.
the current system i liken to a reverse ponzi scheme. Think about it.

[mashman]

Nope, nothing in chaos theory explains how I can be responsible for anyone else's behaviour.

As for the rest, it doesn't represent an honest rebuttal to any of my statements, it's more some frantic rant triggered by long established key words.

But let me put some words in your mouth:

You want to arsehole money, because you don't like the fact that some people do better than others and you think money's the cause of it.

Fit?

Whereas I, like almost every other active member of society see it as a simple token of value. Yes almost everyone, you can tell because they use it for exactly that purpose every day.

You don't like the idea that some make more money than others, and you reckon arseholing money will fix that.

That fit?

Whereas every single person I interact with every day is perfectly happy to decide for themselves how much of their money it's worth paying for anything.

That about sum it up sport?

"the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state". Your actions have consequences for others and they respond accordingly. Geddit yet? It really ain't complicated... actually, scratch that it must be.

I guess I just don't speak Ocean... go figure.

...

Nope, it has nothing to do with the ability of people... it's the environment that's set by money that I object to, primarily the waste of human capital because some old farts like their dictionary definitions too much and aren't keen to let them go because they fear that they're going to lose something... the same old farts that perpetuate the archaic ideal of money. That's the absolute tip of the iceberg in regards to my reasons why money should be arseholed.

No it doesn't.

Do they? Any open minded person I know understands that money is a pathetic way to run an economy. They take part primarily because when they started playing the game they had absolutely no idea of where money came from and used it because they knew no better.

Partial credit... coz I give a shit not that some make more than others... other than to highlight that that's the reason for others to be paid less. You can toss yourself silly in regards to the "value" being produced, but it won't change the fact that it leaves an awful lot of people in an unenviable financial position. Things needn't be that way and to diss their effort because of some fucked up notion of value is pathetic beyond reason.

No it doesn't.

Good for them. I guess that taints your view of the other end of society. I'd say that you should try using a different yardstick, but I know you can't.

Not even close chum.

[Ocean1]

How much damage do the exorbitant profits do to the economy Ocean
Regardless Ocean the money invested by people would be tangible money. Th banks would just have to accept lower profits on the Draw from thin air funds they lend.
Would not people borrow more money if the interest rates were lower using your logic?

Not as much as rampant inflation. What do you think caused that 19% interest on my mortgage?

The market doesn't distinguish between "tangible" and "fiat" money. If you had the choice of a bank loan at 1% or one from a Co-op at 5% the Co-op would never lend that money, the bank's rate would have set the market rate and anything more would simply not sell.

And yes, of course more people would borrow money if it was cheaper, which would cause inflation to rise, lowering the value of everything in the market. See 19% inflation.

Inflation is dictated by fiscal policy manipulated by lenders, But you are saying its a market self regulating economy and now you are preaching control..........

How do lenders manipulate fiscal policy?

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in general to behave that way. The fact that it's not is possibly related to all that fiat money you bleat about. If it didn't exist then loans would be limited to available savings, availability being a required control variable for any free market. What do you suppose such a limit would do to interest rates?

In fact the artificial availability of money drives the price down, doesn't it? Which means loans are definitely easier to get and almost certainly cheaper than any natural free market could supply.

Doesn't that make the bogymen your heroes?

Not Crying that it is unfair it is unjust that the few are manipulating the many and are being protected by the elected few to do it

Back to that again eh? Fine, let's call in all of that fiat money and tell them to stick it back up their arses. Burn the assets they paid for. Are we back to where you want to be yet?

Didn't say you did but you implied i was voicing my opinion cause i was a left wing extremist of sorts.

Don't believe I did. CBF checking but it was my intent to simply point out that the left seem to insist on state control of anything, unless it costs them more personally.

LOL of cause they are they don't always follow the OCR do they? There is no real completion either, its like the fuel cartels.

Do they not? Which ones are significantly uninfluenced by the current rate mate? I could do with a good tip.

Of course competition's limited, that's what central market control is supposed to achieve.

And no, the fuel cartels were joint exploration ventures. Do you mean market control through price fixing collusion? sort of similar eh? Except it's the govt fixing the prices. And as I think I said it's a necessary corollary to the introduction of artificial availability into that market. No funny money = free market = market driven prices. Although, as I also suggested I don't think you'd like that compared to the current deal.

[Ocean1]

"the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state". Your actions have consequences for others and they respond accordingly. Geddit yet? It really ain't complicated... actually, scratch that it must be.

I guess I just don't speak Ocean... go figure.

Pity, it's a far more coherent language.

And no, still no cigar, I AM responsible for my actions. I am NOT responsible for anyone else's. Full stop.

Can we boil the difference down to the brutal simplicity of your belief in equity of outcomes, no matter what's produced?

Whereas I believe I can say that I believe in equity of opportunity as a fair state of affairs?

Or do you want to warble on some more about unrelated crap?