Stupid World

[Ocean1]

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.

We don't have to secure money from fractional rate sources?

Shows how long it's been...

And we've already done the other thing to death, dude, including public bail-outs of private lenders.

[husaberg]

We don't have to secure money from fractional rate sources?

Shows how long it's been...

And we've already done the other thing to death, dude, including public bail-outs of private lenders.

We or i have? you just keep on saying you are Ok with it?

[mashman]

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.

Because everyone hasn't been asked.

I don't harp on about NOW most of the time. Hang on, you say that someone should be allowed to point out that an option is poor, but there's no right to judge? I'll judge how I like within the context I choose thanks, just the same as you.


The answer is good enough for many others I've spoken with. I'll let you know when I have the figures for ya. I won't be assuring the people of anything, because they will be assuring themselves. You really don't grasp the concept do ya? You believe that everyone needs the same "proof" as you. Sorry to tell you, but they don't, well, not everyone... I know, because I've asked.

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

It's sarcasm, a cheap shot and a slice of reality. Where are they going to suddenly get all of this money from? Investors? If these investors existed, why didn't they put their hands up in the first place? And what assets are they going to get in return? Is the govt going to fashion more bonds out of thin air so that they can justify the printing of money?

[bogan]

Because everyone hasn't been asked.

I don't harp on about NOW most of the time. Hang on, you say that someone should be allowed to point out that an option is poor, but there's no right to judge? I'll judge how I like within the context I choose thanks, just the same as you.


The answer is good enough for many others I've spoken with. I'll let you know when I have the figures for ya. I won't be assuring the people of anything, because they will be assuring themselves. You really don't grasp the concept do ya? You believe that everyone needs the same "proof" as you. Sorry to tell you, but they don't, well, not everyone... I know, because I've asked.



It's sarcasm, a cheap shot and a slice of reality. Where are they going to suddenly get all of this money from? Investors? If these investors existed, why didn't they put their hands up in the first place? And what assets are they going to get in return? Is the govt going to fashion more bonds out of thin air so that they can justify the printing of money?

Not asked, just the raw figures, how much of the workforce is employed in those jobs.

There's no right to judge someone poorly just for having an opinion different to your own. Do you really think otherwise?

You don't seem to understand that you will have to convince almost everyone, now if people you talk to have agreed with this shit, I couldn't care less, many clearly disagree as well.

You don't need any extra money to get more GDP. Take a look at what the P in GDP stands for and educate yourself.

[mashman]

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

Write to them then, coz they obviously need to update their definition... or you do.

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

Never said it was. We were discussing unconditional basic income.

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.

Well that wasn't the reason so there must be other things in play that you don't know about.

Aha.

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

Makes perfect sense to me. The failing is entirely yours.

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.

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.

A benevolent despot then.

What constraints? You're making shit up. Where have I pointed it out... if I have pointed it out repeatedly, it should be too hard for you to throw up the comments. The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

[Ocean1]

We or i have? you just keep on saying you are Ok with it?

I'd personally rather not borrow money at all, and if I did I'd be making any decision on whether the deal is affordable and represents an acceptable risk for me or not on the price, not who's profiting from it.

I did ask you to show me an alternative that puts as much money on the market and doesn't completely fuck it, but IIRC you simply repeated "less profit". And I'm afraid that classifies as fucking the market, because everyone with savings would suffer.

I guess you could mandate every single element of every banking and investment transaction, but if you don't like the power the banks have now then I don't think you'd be very happy with the totalitarian system that'd require.

[mashman]

Not asked, just the raw figures, how much of the workforce is employed in those jobs.

There's no right to judge someone poorly just for having an opinion different to your own. Do you really think otherwise?

You don't seem to understand that you will have to convince almost everyone, now if people you talk to have agreed with this shit, I couldn't care less, many clearly disagree as well.

You don't need any extra money to get more GDP. Take a look at what the P in GDP stands for and educate yourself.

We've been through this. Your point was taken. You'll get your figures when they're needed.

Nope.

Yes I do. I have stated it repeatedly... but it won't be me or NOW that'll be doing the convincing, it'll be friends/family/colleagues i.e. communication between those who usually discuss these things. NOW will merely offer a solution, every alternative solution will be considered. True, many who agree once disagreed until they had further details. THEY change THEIR minds in light of new information. You need different information, noted.

So the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? Coz you say that all we need to do is roll up our sleeves and produce more, erm, hmmmmm, what exactly are we going to be producing?

[Brian d marge]

You use your Mom as collateral on loans?

Shes as good as gold



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

So under your system I can earn more than your bin man?

No?

That's what's known as a constraint.

So is not being able to decide what I want to buy, and how much I want to pay for it without interference from your comittee.

The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

So last time you stopped in at the shop on the way home for some milk you didn't bother checking the price befor you paid for it?

Or did you call your comittee to check that was OK?

[Ocean1]

Shes as good as gold



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Stephen, I have absolutely no doubt of it.

[husaberg]

I'd personally rather not borrow money at all, and if I did I'd be making any decision on whether the deal is affordable and represents an acceptable risk for me or not on the price, not who's profiting from it.

I did ask you to show me an alternative that puts as much money on the market and doesn't completely fuck it, but IIRC you simply repeated "less profit". And I'm afraid that classifies as fucking the market, because everyone with savings would suffer.

I guess you could mandate every single element of every banking and investment transaction, but if you don't like the power the banks have now then I don't think you'd be very happy with the totalitarian system that'd require.

everyone would unless its for a ponzi scheme.
There is plenty of money around for the economies. its just its tied up by those at the top.Ie the distribution of wealth.
the other problem is the value of goods vs the av wages. It is not the availability of money its,what the average person recieve's as wages vs what it actually buys in real terms.................

[bogan]

We've been through this. Your point was taken. You'll get your figures when they're needed.

Nope.

Yes I do. I have stated it repeatedly... but it won't be me or NOW that'll be doing the convincing, it'll be friends/family/colleagues i.e. communication between those who usually discuss these things. NOW will merely offer a solution, every alternative solution will be considered. True, many who agree once disagreed until they had further details. THEY change THEIR minds in light of new information. You need different information, noted.

So the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? Coz you say that all we need to do is roll up our sleeves and produce more, erm, hmmmmm, what exactly are we going to be producing?

Fine, but don't expect me to give this half assed idea any weight until then.

Exactly, so don't judge your mate as being negative just cos he thought your idea was a waste of time.

It'll be the facts and logic, anyone with either can start the ball rolling on that. Unfortunately I've not seen much of either from NOW.

In increasing the GDP, the world value of production is increased, you don't have to print any extra money for that to happen. Just the money already in circulation has to change hands more often. Do you understand yet?

[Brian d marge]

Currency is the ultimate lube for wealth transfer

The more of the stuff ya can get the more wealth ya can get . Even the jermans having to wait

On a side note the inspection team from jermany were shown their gold but couldnt check other areas as in the dodgy buggers painted a few lead bars and said ya can look but dont touch

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mashman]

So under your system I can earn more than your bin man?

No?

That's what's known as a constraint.

So is not being able to decide what I want to buy, and how much I want to pay for it without interference from your comittee.

So last time you stopped in at the shop on the way home for some milk you didn't bother checking the price befor you paid for it?

Or did you call your comittee to check that was OK?

Hint 1: "my" system does not involve earning.
Hint 2: "my" system does not involve buying or paying.

[mashman]

Fine, but don't expect me to give this half assed idea any weight until then.

Exactly, so don't judge your mate as being negative just cos he thought your idea was a waste of time.

It'll be the facts and logic, anyone with either can start the ball rolling on that. Unfortunately I've not seen much of either from NOW.

In increasing the GDP, the world value of production is increased, you don't have to print any extra money for that to happen. Just the money already in circulation has to change hands more often. Do you understand yet?

I wouldn't expect any less.

I didn't judge him, he judged NOW as entirely negative, the 2 girlz judged NOW as positive. I was neutral. About that bias thing you keep talkin about........

There's plenty of facts and logic, you choose not to see them that way because you aren't provided with the facts that you want. No money = no poverty, free education, free healthcare, almost eradication of financial crime, no such thing as financial/budget constraint. All fact and logic.

I thought money laundering was a crime.