Stupid World

[Ocean1]

zeroing in on this (because the rest of the argument is hurting my head) can you not agree that, if I want (say) one of your goats plus six duck eggs and you are willing to accept in exchange(say) one of my lambs and a laying hen* that THAT is more beneficial to the parties engaged in the exchange (if less convenient) than dealing through a third party who will charge you the eggs and me the hen for acting as middleman?

Depends. Is this middleman adding any value to the product?

Is he collecting it from outer Mongolia and presenting it to my corner shop?

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

Moving on from there, if the middleman then lends the eggs (or the hen, I'm not fussed) and expects not only the principal but also (say) a dozen mixed eggs** ) back in return, then we have the beginnings of the problem

No, what you have is the beginning of a negotiation.

If I think his deal is worth the extra eggs then I’ll pay ‘em.

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

In the great scheme of things, banks and other financiers are the go-betweens reaping far more rewards than the participants in the transaction by taking from BOTH sides ... it's a service that grows/produces/manufactures nothing - smoke and mirrors and, in some instances, misery? I don't agree with some of the opinions here but I can understand and, to a greater or lesser extent, understand the sheer frustration from whence they spring. Can't you?

Both Judaism and Islam are rigid concerning usary ... Christians used to be, too (with a differing opinion on what constitutes kindred) ... religion-wise I'm a nothing, but if you acknowledge the great religions of the world as having a hand in shaping civilization then wouldn't you agree that mebbe, just mebbe, we should take their input on board?

• At the moment we have a financial system with top heavy benefits for those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom
• we have no democratic way of enforcing a fairer system or of placing limits or parameters on the system we have (even though the rapacious behaviour of the elite is heedless of the fact (based on observations of the rise and fall of punitive systems of various types elsewhere) is likely to end badly, in a 'lose/lose way
• nobody in their right mind wants the chaos this collapse would cause

I don't pretend to have a solution other than the suggestion I made in my post at 09:40 today

I DO know that a) there's a problem and b) it can't be fixed by ignoring it, intellectualising it or saying "she'll be right"

Nicely put. And yes Christianity is agin’ usury. I’m not entirely sure that means “no interest” though. I rather suspect it can translate as well to “don’t take advantage of market dominance”.

I’m happy with either, as long as the rules surrounding them represent a workable mechanism. IE: to encourage productive behaviour and discourage unproductive behaviour. So before you deny people the ability to earn money from their retirement nest egg how about you ask those wanting a loan if that suits them?

And there’s the beginning of my problem with doing away with the evel banks and their evel ways: who’s signature is on the mortgage? You can’t pretend all those loans were forced on anyone, can you? And that breakdown of bank/mortgage holder home ownership in the US… isn’t really relevant. In the US the bank owns title until the house is completely paid for. A wee clause that took a truly enormous chunk out of their arse a few years ago when house prices plummeted to below many of their clients’ equity and they simply walked away from the deal.

As for the rich getting richer… if it really matters to you then I can recommend some books that outline the risks you have to take and the work you have to undertake in order for that to happen.

And as for the poor getting poorer: Bullshit, any rational comparison of historic living standards in the western world would demonstrate that we’ve got it better than our parents, way better than our grandparents etc etc.

So yes, there is probably some rules that could be tweaked to good effect, but let’s see a detailed un-spun analysis of the effects of those changes first eh? Many of those proposed by the lunatic fringes in the name of a fairness that can only ever be relitive to the parties involved would see disastrous effects for our children.

[mashman]

No, walls of drivel don't refute the facts. I suggested your "system" was based on bullshit, quoting your insistence that money is an infinite resource. The fact hat you fail to see it as anything else is your problem.

resource
rɪˈsɔːs,rɪˈzɔːs/Submit
noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

You'd better write to them to highlight the error of their ways. Money is the resource required to form currency. It is infinite.

Show me some.

It is the premise for an LVT... there are many economists who support an LVT. The economists supporting the UIB proposal in Switzerland also.

It's not difficult, they decided you wern't worth what they were paying. You agreed. That's how it's supposed to work.

Nope. Try again.

Your example above is a tiny slice of the evidence that smacks you around the head every day, you simply translate it into giberish to fit your needs and press on regardless. On the other hand no economy can ever work based on everything being worth whatever the producer wants / whatever the commitee say, (whichever is the flavour of the month).

And any sympathising socialist already has any number of choices of similar systems to chose from, they can fuck off on the same boat as you to enjoy them to their hearts content.

I allow it to smack me around the head every day coz I value the economy and the society in which I and others operate as more than it being the best it can be. It makes sense. It is logical. It can be done.

Spoken like a true despot.

If you understood that everyone has the right to spend their money as they see fit then you wouldn't be trying to impose conditions on which services they have to pay for and how much they have to pay for them.

Who's imposing conditions? I'm merely seeking an answer from each individual as to how they would prefer to live.

[mstriumph]

Depends. Is this middleman adding any value to the product?

Is he collecting it from outer Mongolia and presenting it to my corner shop?

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!!

No, what you have is the beginning of a negotiation.

If I think his deal is worth the extra eggs then I’ll pay ‘em.

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

My point is/was most 'clients' have very little choice ' - the 'little man 'negotiates' from a position of such weakness that it's a farce

Nicely put. And yes Christianity is agin’ usury. I’m not entirely sure that means “no interest” though. I rather suspect it can translate as well to “don’t take advantage of market dominance”.

Actually no ... it's about kindness and not taking advantage of your fellow and adding to his problems when he's already in a bind. Anyway Christianity abandoned it a while ago

I’m happy with either, as long as the rules surrounding them represent a workable mechanism. IE: to encourage productive behaviour and discourage unproductive behaviour. So before you deny people the ability to earn money from their retirement nest egg how about you ask those wanting a loan if that suits them?

And there’s the beginning of my problem with doing away with the evel banks and their evel ways: who’s signature is on the mortgage? You can’t pretend all those loans were forced on anyone, can you? And that breakdown of bank/mortgage holder home ownership in the US… isn’t really relevant. In the US the bank owns title until the house is completely paid for. A wee clause that took a truly enormous chunk out of their arse a few years ago when house prices plummeted to below many of their clients’ equity and they simply walked away from the deal.

they didn't walk, they were foreclosed. It would have served the nation and the dispossessed homeowners better if the government had directed the money they poured into bailing out the banks at that time into cancelling all those mortgages, letting people stay in their homes and avoided the terrible toll of misery in making people homeless .... we were there - we saw it
distressing - and avoidable

As for the rich getting richer… if it really matters to you then I can recommend some books that outline the risks you have to take and the work you have to undertake in order for that to happen.

And as for the poor getting poorer: Bullshit, any rational comparison of historic living standards in the western world would demonstrate that we’ve got it better than our parents, way better than our grandparents etc etc.

I was talking about a straight comparison between the position of the elite, the position of the little man and the widning gap between - ie i'm talking apples, you are responding oranges .....

So yes, there is probably some rules that could be tweaked to good effect, but let’s see a detailed un-spun analysis of the effects of those changes first eh? Many of those proposed by the lunatic fringes in the name of a fairness that can only ever be relitive to the parties involved would see disastrous effects for our children.

rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, friend

there's an elephant in the room - to refuse to acknowledge it won't make it go away

- your point about pensions is a valid one ... but the overarching problem is that it's not the financial institutions money being paid in interest ... every cent of it come from the pocket of some other poor sod

as I said - I don't have an answer
brief answer ...got to go to work now - got the government to support (which is also adept at feathering its own nest with money it's levied elsewhere) .....

[bogan]

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!!

But what if you have excess goats/eggs and no desire for lambs/hens? The added value is that you don't need to arse about for 63 weeks trying to find somebody to swap an ipod for your 5 ton of manure; or arse about for 37 weeks finding people to swap 317 in between items to complete the trade. And that is a long time to have 5 ton of shit lying around.

[mashman]

But NOW's ability to achieve a functional society is related to that percentage.

The bias is that you misuse the 'make the best of it' ideal. Make the best of it is used when you have to do something, ie, fuck I hate work team building exercises but I may as well make the best of it. It is not used as a justification for doing optional things that you don't think is a good idea, ie, I'm pretty sure sticking my hand in that circular saw is a bad idea, but I may as well make the best of it!

Ok, give me a straight answer to this then, under NOW, would society as a whole, do more, equal, or less work than we currently do? Stop thinking about it in individual terms, I don't care if you get to cut back your hours, if you can cut back only due to someone else taking on some of your work, then that would be equal work input.

It's no an absolute requirement to achieve a functional society, but it would most definitely help. As a side effect of NOW is an efficiency drive (best bang for societal buck), it is reasonable to conclude that there will be people who will become unemployed. Society can still function without those people in their jobs, else they would be asked to stay in their jobs.

How is that a bias? There are plenty of things I don't enjoy doing, but they are overridden by me feeling that I'll be letting someone down. I make the choice to do what is optional and even though I know I'm not going to enjoy it, I'll make the best of it. Justified!

More, equal and less. I'm not being purposefully obtuse. It's like asking the government what next years tax take is going to be. Sure they should have the numbers, but if 10,000 people lose their jobs or 10,000 new positions are filled or business earnings are lower than forecast or higher, then that tax take will change.

[mashman]

WOOHOO printing more money... coz it'll fix everything. Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

[bogan]

It's no an absolute requirement to achieve a functional society, but it would most definitely help. As a side effect of NOW is an efficiency drive (best bang for societal buck), it is reasonable to conclude that there will be people who will become unemployed. Society can still function without those people in their jobs, else they would be asked to stay in their jobs.

How is that a bias? There are plenty of things I don't enjoy doing, but they are overridden by me feeling that I'll be letting someone down. I make the choice to do what is optional and even though I know I'm not going to enjoy it, I'll make the best of it. Justified!

More, equal and less. I'm not being purposefully obtuse. It's like asking the government what next years tax take is going to be. Sure they should have the numbers, but if 10,000 people lose their jobs or 10,000 new positions are filled or business earnings are lower than forecast or higher, then that tax take will change.

It would, so why haven't you got the figures?

Just because you can make the best of a poor option, doesn't mean nobody should point out it is a poor option. An example, how about you chose not to harp on about NOW etc, and make the best of that? Obviously that is an option you look at negatively, so you don't do it. You've no right to judge other's harshly for doing the same to the option you chose; in doing so, you show bias.

I don't care if it is on purpose or not, that answer is not good enough. You've failed to provide answers for the most basic questions about the NOW system. To get anywhere with this, you must assure people it will be able to support a stable society, and a bunch of vague answers and hopes simply do not do that. You seem to accept this is a truth when you say NOW is not ready, so perhaps instead of pushing for it to be discussed, you should push those in NOW to answer the basic questions so a meaningful discussion can be had.

[bogan]

WOOHOO printing more money... coz it'll fix everything. Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

I despair, do you actually think that means they have to print more money? Or is this some sarcastic cheap shot?

[Ocean1]

You'd better write to them to highlight the error of their ways. Money is the resource required to form currency. It is infinite.

No it's not. it REPRESENTS assets, which are finite.

It is the premise for an LVT... there are many economists who support an LVT. The economists supporting the UIB proposal in Switzerland also.

A land value tax has nothing to do with abolishing money.

Nope. Try again.

I'm happy with the first reason, it describes a simple market transaction

If you weren't such a hypocrite you’d have insisted on a wage cut to the same as your bin man, although I can see how your boss might not see someone with such ambition as worthy of a place on his staff.

I allow it to smack me around the head every day coz I value the economy and the society in which I and others operate as more than it being the best it can be. It makes sense. It is logical. It can be done.

More drivel. If you can’t construct a coherent sentence just admit you don’t have a clue.

Spoken like a true despot.

A despot wouldn’t bother pointing out where you can live where you get no choice on what you have or what it costs, he’d have just shot you.

Who's imposing conditions? I'm merely seeking an answer from each individual as to how they would prefer to live.

Your “system” imposes constraints on pretty much everything. That’s a condition of participation, you’ve pointed it out repeatedly that someone other than the end user would get to dictate price and availability.

[Ocean1]

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!!

Then I don’t deal with him. It really is that simple.

My point is/was most 'clients' have very little choice ' - the 'little man 'negotiates' from a position of such weakness that it's a farce

So, on one hand you’re against the borrowing of money, (presumably unless it’s interest free) but on the other hand you say people haven’t got a choice but to borrow money?

Or do you simply not like the price?

Actually no ... it's about kindness and not taking advantage of your fellow and adding to his problems when he's already in a bind.

That sounds far more like a projection of your world view than a succinct definition of usury. And in fact “not taking advantage of market dominance” isn’t a million miles away.

they didn't walk, they were foreclosed. It would have served the nation and the dispossessed homeowners better if the government had directed the money they poured into bailing out the banks at that time into cancelling all those mortgages, letting people stay in their homes and avoided the terrible toll of misery in making people homeless .... we were there - we saw it
distressing - and avoidable.

Then you should know that a large number of mortgage holders weren’t just “foreclosed”, they simply walked away from a debt they had no hope of repaying, and they did so with no intention of ever repaying it. The subsequent legal foreclosure doesn’t change the fact that they defaulted on an agreement, leaving someone else substantially worse off.

Misery there was. Avoidable it was, most equitably by not agreeing to borrow shitloads of money they never had a chance of paying back no matter what the housing market did.

Sorry, limited sympathy.

I was talking about a straight comparison between the position of the elite, the position of the little man and the widning gap between - ie i'm talking apples, you are responding oranges .....

I don’t recognise any elite. I don’t accept there’s any such thing as a man too little to succeed. A little fewer people doing so might well narrow that gap you’re so worried about…

rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, friend

there's an elephant in the room - to refuse to acknowledge it won't make it go away

… And it remains a fact that for the vast majority of westerners living standards are currently better than any millionaire from a previous generation. And that’s been true for several generations. So “the end is neigh” elephant isn’t really that substantial, is it? And doesn't pointing the finger at people with lots of money and saying they're at fault for your lack smell just ever so slightly like plain simple envy?

- your point about pensions is a valid one ... but the overarching problem is that it's not the financial institutions money being paid in interest ... every cent of it come from the pocket of some other poor sod

You’re going to have to explain that.

as I said - I don't have an answer
brief answer ...got to go to work now

That answer’s been all I’ve ever needed to be reasonably happy with my lot.

[Brian d marge]

I wonder where "g20 " going to " find " the money

how are they going to "BOOST " the economy the article didnt say !

Stephen

btw

snip;( money)
No it's not. it REPRESENTS assets, which are finite.


in a fiat money sytem the money is not backed by anything but a promise ( NZ is a fiat money system)

[Ocean1]

in a fiat money sytem the money is not backed by anything but a promise ( NZ is a fiat money system)

I’d be interested to know where you borrow money that doesn’t require collateral.

Very interested.

[Brian d marge]

My mom
But the money u borrow is not backed by anything other than a promise
Used to be gold
Now just a promise

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[husaberg]

I’d be interested to know where you borrow money that doesn’t require collateral.

Very interested.

Hello......... fractional banking.
So Ocean it is ok to invent money to lend and make interest(ie Substantial profit) on.
but you are puzzled by how someone would lend money to someone without collateral..............
Unless of course the peasants who pay the government guarantee when a bank goes tits up are actually the collateral.

[Ocean1]

My mom
But the money u borrow is not backed by anything other than a promise
Used to be gold
Now just a promise

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

You use your Mom as collateral on loans?