Welfare support and drug testing

[Ocean1]

It's not a case of liking it or not, well not entirely, but some folk handle their affairs to the detriment of others and I see no reason why I should let that go just because I have the option to do so. I can't stop you from pretending that bad people don't exist, but I'll not join you in that world.

Of course they do, but you're particular bogeymen wouldn't exist if greedy people didn't think they stood a chance at earning something for nothing.

I'll settle for lager and pork pies... t'was once my staple diet but the pork pies over here pale in comparison to thems from blighty.

I've had them, they were shite. Well, except the 2lb jobs from a wee butcher in Chesterfield. Most of the more southern versions contained such a paltry wee dried lump of gristle they rattled when you shook 'em.

There are plenty of free things in this world, you just have to take them.

TANSTAFL.

Ever.

[mashman]

I stand to be corrected, but I'm tolerably sure they have to have a certain minimum actually on hand. And the rest isn't "invented" so much as it represents the value of your eventual repayments.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. They pull money out of thin air to pay for bonds that are pulled out of thin air (or some other brand new low interest imaginary value bearing debt) and they have to have a certain minimum on hand? You don't think that thems that create the money will just say that they have that certain minimum on hand? Who's going to validate that that money exists? As Greenspan said himself when talking about the Federal Reserve Bank "there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take". Bonus points for spotting the mistake in his claim. The debt is interest bearing. Where does the money for the interest come from if you're printing new money? er, er, er, er... you may be tolerably sure that they need a certain minimum in reserve (I'm pretty sure that it's only the banks that the central banks lend to that need to have that reserve, could be wrong, but as they control the creation of money, it'd be kinda moot to impose such a requirement?), but make no mistake anything of value that the "new" money is valued against is also plucked out of thin air. S'ok though, they're trusting sorts

[mashman]

Of course they do, but you're particular bogeymen wouldn't exist if greedy people didn't think they stood a chance at earning something for nothing.

I've had them, they were shite. Well, except the 2lb jobs from a wee butcher in Chesterfield. Most of the more southern versions contained such a paltry wee dried lump of gristle they rattled when you shook 'em.

TANSTAFL.

Ever.

From my perspective profit is earning something for nothing. You make a product that is worth X and if the Y that you take in is greater than X then you have earned something from nothing. Technically

Aye, there are them thar places that pump out the mouth drying limp of rock often labeled Melton Mowbray... Pork Farms were feckin delicious junk food pork pies... we only had the butcher stuff on special occasions... even then it depended on the butcher (fewer and far between as a business these days )

tell that to the celebs that receive free stuff from designers etc... or to the homeless that get food from the soup kitchen... or to the banks that pluck money out of thin air. It should all be free though

[husaberg]

I stand to be corrected, but I'm tolerably sure they have to have a certain minimum actually on hand. And the rest isn't "invented" so much as it represents the value of your eventual repayments.




You probably could. All you need is access to the same investors and/or securities they do. And if you're interested in sticking it to the banks, or any other lending institution then the very best way is to fail to sign a loan agreement with them.

I can speak for the banks outside the US but the US bank are able to lend out 10 times more money than they have the capital to cover.

This is why i say invent money its quite a profitable business as well,
until the poos hit the fan, but never min the good old tax payer is there to bail them out when it goes pear shaped.
Now it seem this madness continues on to the other financial institutions as well as evidence by the bail out of Wall street.
Not to mention the bailout here of the financial institutions who lent money they didn't have.
No worries though the tax payer will bail them out it. Yet No one will be held accountable (unless they are a soft target SCF) It would have been a fair call if it had a been a bank but those people made a conscious decision to invest in something less secure in order to reap higher returns.
Therefor hey deserved to lose there money, as do anyone else who invests in the stock market in companies that have no tangible assets or products.

PS do you think the US Government owns the US federal reserve bank.
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-own...deral-reserve/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/...s-member-banks

[Ocean1]

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. They pull money out of thin air to pay for bonds that are pulled out of thin air (or some other brand new low interest imaginary value bearing debt) and they have to have a certain minimum on hand? You don't think that thems that create the money will just say that they have that certain minimum on hand? Who's going to validate that that money exists? As Greenspan said himself when talking about the Federal Reserve Bank "there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take". Bonus points for spotting the mistake in his claim. The debt is interest bearing. Where does the money for the interest come from if you're printing new money? er, er, er, er... you may be tolerably sure that they need a certain minimum in reserve (I'm pretty sure that it's only the banks that the central banks lend to that need to have that reserve, could be wrong, but as they control the creation of money, it'd be kinda moot to impose such a requirement?), but make no mistake anything of value that the "new" money is valued against is also plucked out of thin air. S'ok though, they're trusting sorts

No cigar. Any money simply "plucked from thin air" doesn't actually have any value, therefore it effectively devalues the whole economy. Which isn't to say that something similar doesn't happen, it's just that in order for it to work you need to have a sucker that's prepared to believe that he can indeed make something from nothing. Guess who ends up paying for that assumption?

Like I said, if you don't think the various financial institutions have a product that you think is worth the asking price then I strongly suggest that you don't buy 'em. Problem fixd.

[Ocean1]

From my perspective profit is earning something for nothing. You make a product that is worth X and if the Y that you take in is greater than X then you have earned something from nothing. Technically

Wrong. Again. Certainly it's often possible to convince some sucker to pay you more for something that you paid for yourself. But the more usual way to make a profit, (notice that M word there?) is to add value to a product and THEN sell it for more than you paid for it. Same deal as above: you need to convince the client he's getting something that's worth his hard earned.

tell that to the celebs that receive free stuff from designers etc... or to the homeless that get food from the soup kitchen... or to the banks that pluck money out of thin air. It should all be free though

Nothing, nothing that's worth anything at all is ever plucked out of thin air. You can assume that if some fashion house gives some catwalk tart a free skivvy it's because they'll benefit from it by more than the face value of the gift. The soup doesn't instantly materialise just because the homeless are a tad peckish innit? Some bastard paid for it didn't he?

TANSTFL.

[Ocean1]

I can speak for the banks outside the US but the US bank are able to lend out 10 times more money than they have the capital to cover.

17% last time I looked.

As for the rest, couldn't agree more, those that take the risk should take the consequences of failure.

[mashman]

No cigar. Any money simply "plucked from thin air" doesn't actually have any value, therefore it effectively devalues the whole economy. Which isn't to say that something similar doesn't happen, it's just that in order for it to work you need to have a sucker that's prepared to believe that he can indeed make something from nothing. Guess who ends up paying for that assumption?

Like I said, if you don't think the various financial institutions have a product that you think is worth the asking price then I strongly suggest that you don't buy 'em. Problem fixd.

Greenspan said "no other agency of government" and as hussyvoice pointed out in his post, the Fed isn't a govt agency. Supply and demand. If the money is required, it will add value... else the economy would have collapsed after the first, erm, collapse. Turn the money tap back on and hey presto, everyone's borrowing. Devalutation doesn't happen, as hussyvoice said, because the interest payable is on the $1 billion that is created, not on the $10 billion that it generates. Granted still doomed to a periodic devaluation, but always recouped in the next round of boom. I agree, we all pay for those who create something out of nothing as the "cost" of creating something out of nothing has to be clawed back somewhere .

Funnily enough I have very little choice in the matter as the entire country is completely reliant on money and to that extent so am I. The true cost isn't worth it for some and until that becomes the norm/majority, the country and the economy will keep cycling on and the grown ups will still believe that individual money and success, with a liberal lashing of bludger bashing, are the measure of the "man". Til then I'll spend what I have to spend to maintain a normal life and with any luck my only debt will remain the mortgage. Oddly enough the Spanish, in some regions, are time banking and the economists are dancing up and down because it doesn't generate any wealth for the wider economy. Go figure. Rock meets hard place, best to just cut to the chase and bin the financial system and evolve good and proper.

[husaberg]

17% last time I looked.

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

I can't remember where but my understanding is 50% of the worlds wealth has been acumulated by 5% of the population and the figure is rising faster every "recession" i quote recession cause how come is it we are in a global recession yet the price of basic commodities are rising yet the actual producers of those commodies are being paid less on account of the recession.

[mashman]

Wrong. Again. Certainly it's often possible to convince some sucker to pay you more for something that you paid for yourself. But the more usual way to make a profit, (notice that M word there?) is to add value to a product and THEN sell it for more than you paid for it. Same deal as above: you need to convince the client he's getting something that's worth his hard earned.

Nothing, nothing that's worth anything at all is ever plucked out of thin air. You can assume that if some fashion house gives some catwalk tart a free skivvy it's because they'll benefit from it by more than the face value of the gift. The soup doesn't instantly materialise just because the homeless are a tad peckish innit? Some bastard paid for it didn't he?

TANSTFL.

It happens on trademe all the time. I disagree. That's the way the "market" works. How do you explain non-profit organisations?. If you make (that M word?) a profit, then you are making money out of nothing, irrespective of perceived value, it's still money for nothing.

And yet whoever receives the, ok don't get freaked out by the word, but whoever receives the FREEBIE, gets it for nothing. The initial cost is irrelevant as the good/service/whatever has cost someone nothing. So nothing can be worth nothing.

[mashman]

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

I can't remember where but my understanding is 50% of the worlds wealth has been acumulated by 5% of the population and the figure is rising faster every "recession" i quote recession cause how come is it we are in a global recession yet the price of basic commodities are rising yet the actual producers of those commodies are being paid less on account of the recession.

here ya go

[Ocean1]

Nah its far greater than that i stand by ten times it would be interesting to google it its interesting just how intertwined just a few families are in the investment world a dew names always crop up again and again.

Don't know, shouldn't take much to find out.

[husaberg]

here ya go

here is the requirement for the money a run of the mill bank can lend to. As i mentioned around 10 times what they actually have capital to cover.
be a great business to be in write yourself IOU's and just collect money every couple of weeks and if they don't pay eaay, repossess (the asset you lent against or to buy)the money (you never had) on.
In hindsight once the Bank has the deed to say a property i guess they can then lend out ten times more that as well its a great scheme if you ask me

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

[Ocean1]

It happens on trademe all the time. I disagree. That's the way the "market" works. How do you explain non-profit organisations?. If you make (that M word?) a profit, then you are making money out of nothing, irrespective of perceived value, it's still money for nothing.

Any "market" that bases it's income on zero added value lasts only until the suckers realised they've been ripped off. As for the non-profit-organisations: all that shit the they deal in just magically materialises does it? Nobody had to expend effort to make it available to them?

And quite to the contrary, if I'm making a profit then I'm generating value that wasn't there before. By definition I've MADE it. I know it's a big step for someone who'd like to think he doesn't have to actually add any value himself in order to live the happy life, but it's nonetheless the way the real world works. Deal with it.

And yet whoever receives the, ok don't get freaked out by the word, but whoever receives the FREEBIE, gets it for nothing. The initial cost is irrelevant as the good/service/whatever has cost someone nothing. So nothing can be worth nothing.

Nope, it's drivel, can't work it out, you'll have to use proper queens english, dude.

[mashman]

In hindsight once the Bank has the deed to say a property i guess they can then lend out ten times more that as well its a great scheme if you ask me

which the new "owner" can then lend out 10 times, then the new "owner" after that etc... and then we have a property bubble, just turn off the money supply and pop, we spend the next 5 years working out who really has responsibility for the debt... investors get nervous, country's go broke and thems who cut the money supply say that they won't lend any more until people sort their shit out, banks start to collapse, all sorts of ridiculous rules for borrowing suddenly appear from nowhere and governments around the world are held to financial ransom and are forced to implement measures that will ultimately divide the population and leave many suffering, whilst thems at the top put their property deeds in their pockets... but I want the world too, I just don't have enough cash to buy it.