Stupid World

[Katman]

The charge that they are able to levy is directly relational to the value, functionality and efficiency that they provide to us the electorate.

You're incredibly naive, aren't you?

[TheDemonLord]

You're incredibly naive, aren't you?

Simple thought experiment - if we could get the same level of functionality and efficiency without the banks - we wouldn't use them.

The only one being incredibly naive is you - flip your argument on its head:

"Why do IT techs get to charge the exorbitant rates they do, anyone can go on Google and do it themselves"
"Why do Mechanics get to charge the hourly rate? How hard is it to pick up a Spanner and a Haynes manual"

However - the reality is that a Mechanic or IT tech is able to perform functions faster, with a greater degree of accuracy - they provide functionality that they are able to charge a market rate for. The Market rate is a reflective indicator of the value of these services to the end user and also the degree of complexity of the skill.

[Katman]

"Why do Mechanics get to charge the hourly rate? How hard is it to pick up a Spanner and a Haynes manual"

You probably shouldn't go there.

I mean, how hard can it be to take a wheel out and fit it back on your bike, right?

[TheDemonLord]

You probably shouldn't go there.

Just like you probably should talk about Banking and Economics and Monetary theory then aye.....

[Katman]

Just like you probably should talk about Banking and Economics and Monetary theory then aye.....

Just like you should probably proof read your posts before hitting Submit Reply if you're trying to make a point.

[TheDemonLord]

Just like you should probably proof read your posts before hitting Submit Reply if you're trying to make a point.

Well, it's a funny typo - and I'll leave it as is (as you always have a cry when Husaberg or Bogan edits a post).

[Brian d marge]

There are 2 types of systems benevolent and malevolent . one is based on surplus , the other debt .

it is simple really

[mashman]

There are 2 types of systems benevolent and malevolent . one is based on surplus , the other debt .

it is simple really

Do they both involve te monies?

[Brian d marge]

Do they both involve te monies?

No they were a sect created my the rev moon



sent for a divine source

[Ocean1]

Do you even know what a promissory note is?

Cash is just one manifestation

Breton woods has nothing to do with where currency comes from , it was agreed at Yalta . But planned long before, but has nothing to do with currency creation

And as I said try paying ur student loan with a promissory note ..cash if you like , but the question still remains,
.

Where did that cash come from

Round 3 .

Beginning to think that you actually don't have a friggen clue ....


sent for a divine source

Yes.

I know.

Then why do you bleat about it every chance you get? And a bunch you don't.

Anyone reliably honouring their promissory note.


Look, dude, I know you equate money with debt, and you don't like debt.

And as I've said a few times before the answer's simple: Don't fucking borrow money.

Problem solved.

In the meantime the rest of us will continue to use it for what it's designed for: a unit of value useful in exchanging for shit we want and for saving against hard times.

Neither of which anyone not using it will be doing.

So run along like a good wee fiscal rebel and let everyone else mind their own fucking business, eh?

[Brian d marge]

Just answer the question

sent for a divine source

[oldrider]

That they should not do, however - is your opinion.

Who are you to say what they should and shouldn't charge? - remembering I made the observation that you don't seem to like people charging for their services - and here you are (as part of your refutation of this) complaining about what they are charging for their services.

The charge that they are able to levy is directly relational to the value, functionality and efficiency that they provide to us the electorate.

In short - we give them permissions because currently they are the best system that works for us.

All of that tells me that you have no idea about the subject and it is a waste of time keyboard pissing with you - carry on - as you were!

Which helps with Money velocity, improves the growth of the economy, encourages investment and speculation and also helps you and I pay for the things that we wish to own.

Again - in your opinion, I contend that this method of operation has been beneficial both to the end user and the Banks - sure there have been hiccups along the way (not saying the system is 100% perfect and will never say that) but overall it is a fairly resilient system that provides us (the end user) with the functionality that we require.

Only if you accept your premises (which I don't) - and besides - if you want to take the power back, it's simple:

Create a better system that will work in the real world and with real people.

Unfortunately its that last caveat that all the alternative systems and theories fail miserably at - namely they are all based on Marxist principles which are wonderful in theory - except for the fact that it doesn't work with Humans.

All of that tells me that you have no real idea about vagaries of the banking system but of course in that you are not alone!

[Ocean1]

Just answer the question

sent for a divine source

I have. Three times.

If you don't like that answer then ask a different question.

Or not. I really don't give a fuck.

[Brian d marge]

I have. Three times.

If you don't like that answer then ask a different question.

Or not. I really don't give a fuck.

No you have avoided answering the question
4 times now

Q. Where does currency come from

That bit of paper in ya pocket ...where doesth thou cometh from

All the blustering and a hollorin and now amount of toys emanating from cot , won't make it go away

sent for a divine source

[bogan]

Maybe these numbskulls need an example as to how to provide effective discourse, I shall devil's advocate...

The charge that they are able to levy is directly relational to the value, functionality and efficiency that they provide to us the electorate.

In short - we give them permissions because currently they are the best system that works for us.



Which helps with Money velocity, improves the growth of the economy, encourages investment and speculation and also helps you and I pay for the things that we wish to own.



Again - in your opinion, I contend that this method of operation has been beneficial both to the end user and the Banks - sure there have been hiccups along the way (not saying the system is 100% perfect and will never say that) but overall it is a fairly resilient system that provides us (the end user) with the functionality that we require.



Only if you accept your premises (which I don't) - and besides - if you want to take the power back, it's simple:

Create a better system that will work in the real world and with real people.

Unfortunately its that last caveat that all the alternative systems and theories fail miserably at - namely they are all based on Marxist principles which are wonderful in theory - except for the fact that it doesn't work with Humans.

They are also able to charge what the market will bear, given the size of such institutions and slow moving customer base, coupled with their ability to absorb short term losses (when they need to force out new competition) they can create an effective monopolistic long term situation.

It only helps those things until it gets a bit carried away, then causes a market crash in which many people experience great financial hardship, predominantly those in the middle to lower economic scale.

But now the debt/lending is not rigidly coupled to their assets, no other options can compete with that method of operation. The money market volatility is not the functionality we require, it is simply what we get.

Traditional market performance and dynamics start to fall apart in this area due to leverage ambiguity in lending, and the aforementioned size and resilience of established banks. Or to put it another way, if you had to chose between the current system, and one in which banks could only lend out what they had in assets (or a govt mandated multiple thereof), which would you choose?