-
Posts
5,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alan B'Stard MP
-
-
My Cash ETF is doing really bad for some reason.
-
Printy, Printy.
-
I put you in the same class of fruitloop as erranta.
What's with this ceremony of printing up 100,000?
Just default and jubilee it.
-
The fact that debt (and thus accounting) arose before money (and saving before debt) implies circumstantially considerable evidence for my position.
sure it can. That's just saying that not ALL the money issued needs to be paid back at any one point in time. Likewise for private debt - we don't imagine that all private debt needs to be paid back do we - we just need to hope that the obligations change hands with a healthy velocity, at which point paying it all back is no longer a concern, unless your name is interestrateripoff.
Yes, if the service incurs a cost of energy expenditure by a biological entity. All life is leverage - your life is "backed" by having 5% of the total of your circulating blood cells having their replacements manufactured in your bone marrow. As long as that happens you live, or possibly if you fall short you need to shed some mass damn quickly. The state has an exactly analagous circulatory requirement as does the economy. I don't believe for a second that any of the higher social structures we have created are somehow freed from the basic universal laws of form that have given rise (with a bit of help from natural selection and endogenous bodily constraints) to the creatures on which it is based.
Burying the tribe's nuts creates a debt, albeit collectively assumed. If I am alone and bury some nuts, then there is no debt.
Only if there is never any deferred settlement - e.g. no buried nuts, and no saving whatsoever. A debt does not have to be denominated in money for it to be a debt.
I can therefore fund a debt by burying some nuts. I could then issue nut notes if I like. Still, there is no money here unless I convince everyone else my nuts are good. If I succeed in doing that, then I have made some money. In practice I can't achieve that because I'm just one man among many. If we all bury some nuts we individually own in a big pit and then collectively issue nut notes then that can be money, because the information about who owned which specific nut is lost, and if some nuts have gone bad when we dig them up then no one note holder is picked out from the rest.
Creation of money from debt is a process of information loss, and therein I feel comes most of the problems and benefits of money.
I can only say we differ on the definition of debt. For me its someone forgoing a benefit - to have it returned at a later date. The world produces enough surplus for everyones needs - that much we know. No-one needlessly goes hungry for lack of a physical object somewhere on the globe. They may go hungry for not actually having ownership of said item of course.
If we can produce all that we need in totality - there is no debt in totality. Unequal distribution of these surpluses of is the precursor of this debt - nothing more. Why is debt taken on? To gain access to surplus. How can debt be taken on - because someone has a surplus to give.
If government emits money at face value equal to its cost of production - provides no services - and said money flows equally among all economic participants - then no debt is necessary. Therefore, money as debt is therefore not a hard rule of the universe. That in fact it creams a little of everyones surplus is irrelevant.
-
Ogg would dig the nuts up early then they'd all starve.
However, as long as Ugg was bigger than the rest of them and could scare Ogg and co into compliance they'd get through the winter, although Ugg would get a few extra nuts.
Its called civilisation. No 'growth' is required, and no money, in this context.
When the tribe, through successful and repeated application of this recipe grows to a size beyond the basic monkey familial group, money happens.
I'm not contesting when and how money occurs - just that it is a perquisite that it has to be debt based.
Firstly, in a productive economy where each transaction forms the national income and is taxed accordingly - can not this taxation money be used to fund necessary public services, using the economies of scale that bulk purchase allows? Is every level of public service from good to bad provision always going to require debt? The first point about debt is that it requires a willing borrower. What if everyone income and associated expenditure is such that no-one needs to borrow? Are you saying in totality there isn't enough national income for no-one to be debt? How? Who can fund the debt in the first place?
-
Yes, since some cavemen buried some nuts in summer and agreed they'd all wait till the depth of winter to dig them up again.
Shortly after, marks made on clay tablets.
Then later, money.
Cavemen Police?
What's would happen if public services werent forthcoming?
-
Yes it does, they have to pay the police.
Whenever the government issues currency, it is immediately on the hook for some public goods and services which can be obtained by producing the
currency and the government needs to come up with the goods or face collapse. The point is, the cost of issuance does not become due immediately,
which is exactly the definition of a debt.
That's why currency is recorded as a government liability and has the rulers symbol on it.
The value in metal coins is neither here nor there, since without the assumed collective debt behind it they are no better than a loaf of bread, in fact
far less valuable.
Have we always had Police? Public Services?
-
Of course it has a cost - if I am taxed then I forgo consumption, and the guy that gets a benefit whether it be jobseekers allowance or has
an assualt on her person prevented by Her Majesty's police has received the bounty of my forgone consumption.
It has no funding cost.
In fact the State received benefit by spending it in the first place.
-
There is no point distinguishing between tax and legal tender laws, since both create a cloud of debt, from which money springs.
If all debtors default but the coinage retains its value then it implies a debt remains that wants clearing.
No this is wrong.
If I borrow a tenner from Bank Scepticus - you have funded this loan. I have received a benefit that you have forgone. This is debt.
Taxation is not debt because the recipient has not funded it initially - and it has no servicing cost to them.
-
That would be a debt created at gunpoint and is a different sceanrio than the one you suggested.
Yes.
But expectations of future taxation or consumption of debt based services will not render coinage worthless. It's metallic content can be used to meet demand.
No debt but money will still circulate.
-
It loses it's market value.
Unless you need someone to extinguish debt, it's useless.
And what of future taxation?
-
Yes. Money to be such must be unquestionably accepted for payment by all, thus all must be in debt to the exact tune of the amount of money.
So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender?
-
Of course he is quite correct in that context.
Government and bankster money doesn't have any value unless they can make someone desperate for it. After all, unlike ciggies, government money has no market value at all.
So if ALL debtors default - does ALL the coinage disappear? Does it lose its ability to form legal tender?
-
Welcome back. However I'm not wrong.
I can emit coinage with my face printed on it but that doesn't have the same effect as the government doing so, even though I'm better looking than the queen.
So you are saying there can be no money (in your context - for the hard of hearing) without debt?
-
No idea what this means.
I do know that rules about money are going to be universal.
Talking in riddles again I see.
He established a perfectly valid context.
He wasn't talking about monopoly money nor WH Smith vouchers nor ciggies.
-
I understand that.
I also understand that the real world is not divisible.
So I can't tell my son to bring in all the potatoes?
-
All was the word used.
One instance otherwise disproves his following thesis. And there is one.
He had a context.
Like talking about all the potatoes - when gardening your veggie patch.
-
He is incorrect or correct?
And ciggies aren't - and they are money.
Not the class of money he was referring to.
I got the context. It seems you missed it.
-
View Postscepticus, on 23 May 2011 - 07:57 PM, said:
Yes, all money is created from debt
So sceppy is incorrect then.
Thought so. Cheers.
He is. Government can emit coinage. Everything else is a derivative.
-
That was barter creating money.
Therefore money doesn't require debt, no?
Doesn't require it - but doesn't exclude it either.
-
Sceppy.
I have a pack of ciggies.
I trade them with my fellow cellmmate for his chess set. Those ciggies are then traded with someone else for some drugs later on.
We have money (ciggies) but where is the debt?
No debt with barter.
-
Unless this issue is gotten under control, then it is this factor which will more than anything else decide the fate of the world economy and the
shape it takes in response.
Let's not forget the Corporations that are also States.
-
Decent comeback. Sleep well.
But not his own as Mrs Astor will attest to.
-
Wot, no interest on your £1?
How about, bought gold with £1 five years ago. Now can afford 20 cans of soup.
Who says Golds not overvalued
Boe Can't Raise Rates
in House prices and the economy
Posted · Edited by Alan B'Stard MP
How does an antiship missile make someone pay their bills?