The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

[mashman]

Waffle. Pooling resources doesn't actually produce anything. I am my employer, and both of our income is directly dependant on the value of my work. That's the real world. Any arangement that deems productive effort an ineffective strategy is going to be a short arangement. If you see a future "correction" in a system that rewards mediocrity I see one where productivity reaps it's own rewards.

Edit: The damaage a recession does is a nescessary element of the correction. In an ideal world the damage is mostly restricted to the entities who's behaviour drove the need for that correction. Publicly funded bailouts are anathema to any fiscally fair and rational system.

Of course it's waffle where you can only see as far as you. Good luck to ya. Oddly enough I see the current real world as rewarding mediocrity because it refuses to wait for people to be ready to be what they want to be and do the best that they can. All culled by budget constraint an the impatience of old men measuring others by their own yard stick. That real world is full of entrenchment, jobs for the boys, lack of qualifications, lack of experience and various other memes that keep better candidates for certain positions away from those positions. That breeds mediocrity. Right people right job will allow society to excel and move at a pace that too many don't believe is possible. Isolated productivity isn't going to work is it?

Sorry, but I don't see it as necessary at all. Remove the obstacle that's causing the damage and you won't have the damage any more. Just in case you hadn't noticed, that's the financial system. You want fair and rational, then level the playing field and do things for a reason other than making money i.e. because they need to be done. It ain't hard and it'll do more good than not.

[Ocean1]

Of course it's waffle where you can only see as far as you. Good luck to ya. Oddly enough I see the current real world as rewarding mediocrity because it refuses to wait for people to be ready to be what they want to be and do the best that they can. All culled by budget constraint an the impatience of old men measuring others by their own yard stick. That real world is full of entrenchment, jobs for the boys, lack of qualifications, lack of experience and various other memes that keep better candidates for certain positions away from those positions. That breeds mediocrity. Right people right job will allow society to excel and move at a pace that too many don't believe is possible. Isolated productivity isn't going to work is it?

You have an unfortunate propensity, when pressed to chuck words together exactly as if they were a defense against the facts. As a political characteristic it's common. Common as muck. As a viable debating tactic it's all fail.

As for isolated productivity, surely the problem is more redily solved by rewarding productive behaviour rather than blaming it for failing to be more widespread.

Sorry, but I don't see it as necessary at all. Remove the obstacle that's causing the damage and you won't have the damage any more. Just in case you hadn't noticed, that's the financial system. You want fair and rational, then level the playing field and do things for a reason other than making money i.e. because they need to be done. It ain't hard and it'll do more good than not.

Dude, amongst the thousands of people I know aproximately none believe society would be better without a financial system. Probably because they're not silly enough to believe that either everyone's contribution is of equal value or that there's no need to quntify the value of either that contribution or any other asset society encompasses.

[mashman]

You have an unfortunate propensity, when pressed to chuck words together exactly as if they were a defense against the facts. As a political characteristic it's common. Common as muck. As a viable debating tactic it's all fail.

As for isolated productivity, surely the problem is more redily solved by rewarding productive behaviour rather than blaming it for failing to be more widespread.

Dude, amongst the thousands of people I know aproximately none believe society would be better without a financial system. Probably because they're not silly enough to believe that either everyone's contribution is of equal value or that there's no need to quntify the value of either that contribution or any other asset society encompasses.

I'm not defending against the facts at all. I'm denying that the facts, as you offer them, are correct. You say that if you don't reward you get mediocrity. That's absolute bullshit. Money isn't everything to an awful lot of people and yet they'll still slog their guts out. They're facts, yet you choose to deny them as a political jibber jabber because they don't fit your world view. Kudos, bravo, way to stick to your guns etc... I'm wanting to let our potential off the leash and by fuck if even 1% of that potential kicks into gear it'll be 1% more than we currently have and it will be stunning.

sure, go ahead, throw more money at the problem, after all, as long as you're productive in specific valued areas, where's the problem? Oh yeah, everyone else that is working just as hard in jobs that aren't deemed worthy of being afforded similar rewards. After all, according to your yard stick, they should be rewarded but only if they are deemed to be productive. You rely on these people whether you like it or not.

... so they all have tickets on themselves too eh. They can't be very smart people either.

[Brian d marge]

and today i hear, just now, that only 8% of the world's "money" exists... go figure.

I thought it was less than that
3%
stephen

[Brian d marge]

The other end of the spectrum is someone like Lysander Spooner, who incidently I admire for his stand on natural justice, but like all radicals or extremists, made himself unpopular due to his abrasive attitude and actions. He had some very valid points though.

He was a character !!!
and there was another character like him , name escapes me for a moment !

Stephen

[Akzle]

and there was another character like him , name escapes me for a moment !

did he have green font?

[Brian d marge]

did he have green font?

not a font as such more a shrubbery


Stephen

[mashman]

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... desperate times call for desperate measures. I had tears after reading this... of laughter. Fuckin Morons, still missing the point entirely.

[Ocean1]

Fuckin Morons, still missing the point entirely.

Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.

[davereid]

Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.

Yeah, maybe through the fog, we are getting to the bottom of this. Possibly there are more than four corners, but here goes.

Right from the beginning of time, we lived within our means or we died. Couldn't get enough berries or a pig in the bush... demise ensured.

But it wasnt long before the concept of trade, and instantly credit arrived. I would swap my fish for your vegetables. If I had a bad day, you would still let me have my veges. If the frost was hard, I'd still give you fish, in anticipation of the veges spring would give.

thus (1), we create credit all the time. Its a measure of future production.

Then we discovered leaders and government. Well actually they discovered us, and wanted tax. There was invented currency. The king didnt actually want my rotting fish, or putrid potato, so currency was forced on us.

then (2), money is a medium of exchange, which is effectively measured by its ability to pay tax, and thus not be put to death by the crown. It has value because we need it, or we suffer.

Money needs to be introduced to the community. Mashmans link implied print it, and drop it from helicopter, or bury it in a cave and pay the poor to dig it up as the preferred modern method. The old method was, create a project, take workers and slaves, take food and land to support the slaves, and "pay" for what you took with your currency.

so (3) government can't create wealth, but it can take wealth, and create currency.

(4) Slaves make affordable what commerce otherwise couldn't. Once we took the slave, relocated him to our farm and worked him for a wage comprising enough clothing, food and shelter to ensure he could work tomorrow. As long as that was more economic than taking another slave, he would be given his minimum wage.

Same now, except we use border control. We let the slave work in his own country, we just ensure he is trapped there, and cant come here.

And I guess that's quantitative easing, and credit growth in a nutshell. Nothing we haven't seen before. The same tools and principles applied with EFTPOS instead of round coins with square holes.

Except the same problem exists. My fish is still worth swapping for a potato. But how much is the money worth ? Its values depends entirely on how much tax I need to pay. That's why quantitative easing will eventually fail.

[mashman]

Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.

Even though we'd likely be coming at that one from different points of view, I agree with that.

[flyingcrocodile46]

As long as we allow the bankers to print currency (for FA cost and charge interest on it) and release it to the market the dollar has no option but to be devalued because ultimately the value of the dollar is linked to the amount of product available (the money is used to buy product - the real wealth). When the rate of release of new (worthless money) outstrips the level of product growth the value of product appreciates (due to demand/dollar availability). The inflationary effect of the product price increase then very rapidly degrades the value (purchasing power) of the dollar.

The only winners are the bankers who are collecting interest from the taxpayers on the whole (but reduced value) dollar that they plucked out of their arses for a few peanuts and those that receive the new dollars straight off the mint as they are able to take advantage of the old purchasing power of the dollar before it depreciates. This is one of the oldest and most effective method of real wealth (product ownership not dollar ownership) transfer. The govts don't care because it's the taxpayer who is enslaved to the bankers.

This is what really drives true inflation. It is basicaly very greedy and clever people with shameless morals sucessfully manipulating politics and countries laws over the last few centuries on the pretext of providing govts surety by underwriting their ledgers (printing fiat money) and charging the masses via tax to pay interest. All so they can take over all the worlds real wealth. It ain't complicated, it ain't a conspiracy, it is the very simple truth of what is happening to the great majority of the world.

Lincoln and kennedy were both assassinated because they tried to stop it from happening by printing their own interest free money.

Fucking shameless manipulation of the sheeple

[Ocean1]

As long as we allow the bankers to print currency (for FA cost and charge interest on it) and release it to the market the dollar has no option but to be devalued because ultimately the value of the dollar is linked to the amount of product available (the money is used to buy product - the real wealth). When the rate of release of new (worthless money) outstrips the level of product growth the value of product appreciates (due to demand/dollar availability). The inflationary effect of the product price increase then very rapidly degrades the value (purchasing power) of the dollar.

The only winners are the bankers who are collecting interest from the taxpayers on the whole (but reduced value) dollar that they plucked out of their arses for a few peanuts and those that receive the new dollars straight off the mint as they are able to take advantage of the old purchasing power of the dollar before it depreciates. This is one of the oldest and most effective method of real wealth (product ownership not dollar ownership) transfer. The govts don't care because it's the taxpayer who is enslaved to the bankers.

Fucking shameless manipulation of the sheeple

Banks don't print money, govt does, but yes that's the problem in a nutshell.

It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.

'Course, you'd struggle to get a mortgage, but you'd be living within your means, eh?

[mashman]

Yeah, maybe through the fog, we are getting to the bottom of this. Possibly there are more than four corners, but here goes.

Right from the beginning of time, we lived within our means or we died. Couldn't get enough berries or a pig in the bush... demise ensured.

But it wasnt long before the concept of trade, and instantly credit arrived. I would swap my fish for your vegetables. If I had a bad day, you would still let me have my veges. If the frost was hard, I'd still give you fish, in anticipation of the veges spring would give.

thus (1), we create credit all the time. Its a measure of future production.

Then we discovered leaders and government. Well actually they discovered us, and wanted tax. There was invented currency. The king didnt actually want my rotting fish, or putrid potato, so currency was forced on us.

then (2), money is a medium of exchange, which is effectively measured by its ability to pay tax, and thus not be put to death by the crown. It has value because we need it, or we suffer.

Money needs to be introduced to the community. Mashmans link implied print it, and drop it from helicopter, or bury it in a cave and pay the poor to dig it up as the preferred modern method. The old method was, create a project, take workers and slaves, take food and land to support the slaves, and "pay" for what you took with your currency.

so (3) government can't create wealth, but it can take wealth, and create currency.

(4) Slaves make affordable what commerce otherwise couldn't. Once we took the slave, relocated him to our farm and worked him for a wage comprising enough clothing, food and shelter to ensure he could work tomorrow. As long as that was more economic than taking another slave, he would be given his minimum wage.

Same now, except we use border control. We let the slave work in his own country, we just ensure he is trapped there, and cant come here.

And I guess that's quantitative easing, and credit growth in a nutshell. Nothing we haven't seen before. The same tools and principles applied with EFTPOS instead of round coins with square holes.

Except the same problem exists. My fish is still worth swapping for a potato. But how much is the money worth ? Its values depends entirely on how much tax I need to pay. That's why quantitative easing will eventually fail.

Why not, if I want veges, veges are there to be eaten. If I want fish, fish are there to be eaten? Why the need to trade? The reason QE will fail is because consumerism will only go so far. This is the reason that the economy if flailing. I think the Morons underestimated just how much money has been squirreled away by the big boys and how little is left for people to consume. Even at that people will only consume so much. Sure some people will consume in our upgrade age, but as less and less of us are able to afford it and as less and less of us actually give a crap in regard to having the new stuff, the economy will fail. I get the feeling, as I reckon the economists do, that this is what's happening. If there's no consumption, how do the shareholders get paid? I have to laugh at the money drop idea. Let's all settle for being paid what our jobs are worth eh and just wait for the cheque to be able to afford our necessities. Company employees will be paid by the Fed and the managers/CEO's will be paid according to their station. Talk about breeding mediocrity.

As soon as a potato was valued over a fish and wasn't given away without needing to have something in return, we were fucked. We're in a golden age and we're wasting it BIG TIME.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Banks don't print money, govt does, but yes that's the problem in a nutshell.

It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.

'Course, you'd struggle to get a mortgage, but you'd be living within your means, eh?

Actually most of the western worlds govts do not own their own reserve banks through which all currencies are issued (the worlds biggest bankers own them) so they pretty much own everything that comes out of the mints. Which is paid for by interest to the bankers. Govts can't maintain their own reserves because they keep spending them and going bankrupt so they accepted bankers offers to hold gold reserves for them on the agreement that they get paid interest on both existing and new money that they release. The real shame is that it seems likely that most of the reserve banks have very little real reserve left (gold) and it's all getting very shakey.

New money can be introduced by way of loans without causing any inflation as long as the rate of release is aligned to the level of new product made available. I.e not much.

Btw I edited my first post to add a lot more info......... if you are interested.