A.l.l. & Injin's Banking Thread.

[aliveandkicking]

No, I don't.

Reality gets to decide. I ask you for facts and logic, always.

I measurw what you say aginst what happens in material reality.

That's all.

if you say that PC numbers are money, I instantly want to know why I can't just email you some numbers.

but they aren't part of the system or something so I can't.

I don't understand.

Bob does not need a pc to operate his system.

He just needs honest people to earn profits so he can offset his losses against misfortune or fraud where people refuse to pay what is owed to him as agreed when sales are made.

[Injin]

Bob does not need a pc to operate his system.

He just needs honest people.

And items.

[aliveandkicking]

And items.

He does not need ******ing items!

He just needs a record of what has been paid for so he can collect the ******ing money you fool!

[Injin]

He does not need ******ing items!

He just needs a record of what has been paid for so he can collect the ******ing money you fool!

But what is the money if it is not an item?

[aliveandkicking]

But what is the money if it is not an item?

We went down this road before. For arguments sake we already agreed that a buyer agrees to repay bob in gold when a sale is made.

You already acknowledged bob was running a reasonable system

Now you want to play the **** again

[Injin]

We went down this road before. For arguments sake we already agreed that a buyer agrees to repay bob in gold when a sale is made.

You already acknowledged bob was running a reasonable system

Now you want to play the **** again

If gold is the item, why go off your head when I ask?

******ing hell!

[aliveandkicking]

If gold is the item, why go off your head when I ask?

******ing hell!

Because Injins law will ram it up my **** that bob is not lending gold and therefore is a fraud for wanting payment in gold

And Injins law rams it up my **** that credit does not exist

All that Injins law permits is that bob lends a ******ing item

And so it endlessly ******ing goes on with you

[Injin]

Because Injins law will ram it up my **** that bob is not lending gold and therefore is a fraud for wanting payment in gold

And Injins law rams it up my **** that credit does not exist

All that Injins law permits is that bob lends a ******ing item

And so it endlessly ******ing goes on with you

Ok.

What is bob lending then?

he lends - oranges or something and wants paying in gold or?

[aliveandkicking]

Ok.

What is bob lending then?

he lends - oranges or something and wants paying in gold or?

We have been down this road before.

Bob lends nothing other than his authority to enable you to get credit

And if you dont pay he pays in place of you.

Bob provides a service to facilitate trade. You trade and he pays the seller and then wants you to pay him back as you agree.

All you do is repeat your stupidity

[Injin]

We have been down this road before.

Bob lends nothing other than his authority to enable you to get credit

Why would I nee dbobs authority?

And if you dont pay he pays in place of you.

In what item?

Bob provides a service to facilitate trade. You trade and he pays the seller and then wants you to pay him back as you agree.

All you do is repeat your stupidity

All you do is find excuses for why bob is stopping me do what I want to do and don;'t actually need bob for in the first place.

Banks solve all the problems caused by the fact that we have banks.

[aliveandkicking]

Why would I nee dbobs authority?

In what item?

All you do is find excuses for why bob is stopping me do what I want to do and don;'t actually need bob for in the first place.

Banks solve all the problems caused by the fact that we have banks.

For the purposes of argument bob pays in gold when he is notified of the sales agreement

I dont think there is any legal requirement that you use a bank.

If *you* can trade without a bank then trade without banks.

If *you* cant earn goods as wages and you want to get stuff on credit and nobody else will trust you then you use a bank if you wish to and the bank feels like trusting you.

[Injin]

For the purposes of argument bob pays in gold when he is notified of the sales agreement

I dont think there is any legal requirement that you use a bank.

If *you* can trade without a bank then trade without banks.

If *you* cant earn goods as wages and you want to get stuff on credit and nobody else will trust you then you use a bank if you wish to and the bank feels like trusting you.

That's great.

But if that's the case, why would anyone use bobs system?

[aliveandkicking]

That's great.

But if that's the case, why would anyone use bobs system?

We went down this road before.

Because they want credit and cant get it without somebody like bob to act as intemediatory

And you act the fool.

You know the history of goldsmith banking.

People found that payment in gold was inconvenient and they preferred bobs ious but nobody was obliged to take his IOU's if they wanted gold.

None of these facts matter to you

You prefer to cheat.

[Injin]

We went down this road before.

Because they want credit and cant get it without somebody like bob to act as intemediatory

And you act the fool.

I don;t want credit, I want stuff.

You know the history of goldsmith banking.

People found that payment in gold was inconvenient and they preferred bobs ious but nobody was obliged to take his IOU's if they wanted gold.

None of these facts matter to you

You prefer to cheat.

People wanted gold, the accepted receipts because they wanted gold.

There has to be an item at the end of the rainbow.

[aliveandkicking]

I don;t want credit, I want stuff.

People wanted gold, the accepted receipts because they wanted gold.

There has to be an item at the end of the rainbow.

Bob enables you to get stuff you ******ing idiot

By the rules you have imposed on me credit means you get stuff.

Stop being such a complete ****

We went all thru this before.

Bob enables you to buy a jumbo jet from boeing on credit so that bob stands in place of you for the purposes of you getting credit. You agreed this earlier!

He then pays boeing if they ask for the money otherwise he allows them to buy stuff on credit from somebody else or he allows them to save the money with him so he can provide credit services to others. You pay him back as agreed.

[frozen_out]

Bloody hell, are you still coming out with this old cack Injin. We established about 12 months ago your example is nonsense.

You even admitted it was as you claim that a loan is not actually a loan but the bank purchasing your signature. If they purchase your signature then the money is not theirs anymore, is it?

Oh sorry, you actually claimed that the bank both lends and sells you the money, which means the money is both still theirs and yours simultaneously. How does that work then eh?

You occasionally make a good point Injin, but on this you're hopelessly confused and resort to inane semantics in an attempt to salvage your position.

[aliveandkicking]

Bloody hell, are you still coming out with this old cack Injin. We established about 12 months ago your example is nonsense.

You even admitted it was as you claim that a loan is not actually a loan but the bank purchasing your signature. If they purchase your signature then the money is not theirs anymore, is it?

Oh sorry, you actually claimed that the bank both lends and sells you the money, which means the money is both still theirs and yours simultaneously. How does that work then eh?

You occasionally make a good point Injin, but on this you're hopelessly confused and resort to inane semantics in an attempt to salvage your position.

Frozen out

Injin is correct that there is no loan and it it just an agreement at the point the loan is taken out.

No money other than liability to money is created by the loan agreement.

However once a person begins buying things then the banks liability to provide money to the aggreement holder is then transferred to the seller. The bank loses control of its liability to the seller and must get it back from the loan holder to avoid a loss.

Injin is not totally wrong.

But not totally right

He thinks he makes a logical case but cannot (or refuses) to understand the way it works.

[frozen_out]

Frozen out

Injin is correct that there is no loan and it it just an agreement at the point the loan is taken out.

No money other than liability to money is created by the loan agreement.

However once a person begins buying things then the banks liability to provide money to the aggreement holder is then transferred to the seller. The bank loses control of its liability to the seller and must get it back from the loan holder to avoid a loss.

Injin is not totally wrong.

But not totally right

He thinks he makes a logical case but cannot (or refuses) to understand the way it works.

I know.

Like I said, Injin's talking nonsense.

[Injin]

Bob enables you to get stuff you ******ing idiot

By the rules you have imposed on me credit means you get stuff.

Stop being such a complete ****

We went all thru this before.

Bob enables you to buy a jumbo jet from boeing on credit so that bob stands in place of you for the purposes of you getting credit. You agreed this earlier!

He then pays boeing if they ask for the money otherwise he allows them to buy stuff on credit from somebody else or he allows them to save the money with him so he can provide credit services to others. You pay him back as agreed.

The question then becomes -

How does Bob enable the purchase?

If he actually offers something to trade with, then fair enough. if he just pretends then he's the fraudster.

As things stand, that's what he is. You are focusing on what you get out of it without looking at how it's gotten. if Bob had done and armed robbery for the goods, you wouldn't think it was kosher, so why if he has an elaborate con is it ok?

[aliveandkicking]

The question then becomes -

How does Bob enable the purchase?

If he actually offers something to trade with, then fair enough. if he just pretends then he's the fraudster.

As things stand, that's what he is. You are focusing on what you get out of it without looking at how it's gotten. if Bob had done and armed robbery for the goods, you wouldn't think it was kosher, so why if he has an elaborate con is it ok?

Injin

I am trying to explain something to you.

1. That fractional reserve banking can be an honest profession

2. If fractional reserve banking can be an honest profession is it possible to say that there are good banks and bad banks?

Firstly you have to understand the principal of honest banking.

If you cannot get that far then you and i cannot get past where we already are.

But you ask me some questions.

1. "How does Bob enable the purchase?"

Bob acts as if he was you. But bob comes with his reputation for payment and the backing of his wealth. Bob gets credit in your place and allows you the right to the goods you bought using his system. The seller has the right to gold or cash or whatever they want. If they prefer to reinvest in bob for a return they can do that. If they prefer the convenience of bob they can do that.

I have invested in Nordea because i dont want cash or gold in a safe somewhere that i am liable to lose.

Nordea is convenient for me. I still worry about getting my money from Nordea though. The alternative for me is that i buy a house in a falling market and ride it out. But i prefer the risk of having cash and hoping that property falls in value compared to the investment with Nordea. With that method i can also in two days transfer my spending power to the UK if some deal appears there or anywhere in the western world. Banks suit me.

2. "If he actually offers something to trade with, then fair enough. if he just pretends then he's the fraudster."

Bob is not trading with you. He is an enabler. He enables you to get credit with other people.

When you agree a 'loan' bob aggrees to stand in your place so you get credit on an item that he enables you to have the rights to.

Bob offers you credit. And you get credit as you want it. The sellers are paid what they want. You get what you want on credit. And then it is reasonable you pay bob for the purchase you made on credit which bob has given the seller the option of receiving cash or gold or credits for further purchase.

[Injin]

Righto.

Bob doesn't give anyone anything but is owed something. This isnt defined.

Boib tells everyone he has their stuff in his vault but actually he has just promised the same item to many different people and thsi isn't fraud.

Bob gived "credit" whcih isn't an item and needs to be paid back. Somehow.

No one owes anything but the banks need to have "their" things returned to them.

And round and round we go. none of it makes any sense to me, I am sorry.

I can't see it, I can't feel it, I can't smell it, it has no sound. It's completely undefined but it's still there.

It's god but in banking form or some shit and I have no clue what's going on.

[aliveandkicking]

Righto.

Bob doesn't give anyone anything but is owed something. This isnt defined.

Boib tells everyone he has their stuff in his vault but actually he has just promised the same item to many different people and thsi isn't fraud.

Bob gived "credit" whcih isn't an item and needs to be paid back. Somehow.

No one owes anything but the banks need to have "their" things returned to them.

And round and round we go. none of it makes any sense to me, I am sorry.

I can't see it, I can't feel it, I can't smell it, it has no sound. It's completely undefined but it's still there.

It's god but in banking form or some shit and I have no clue what's going on.

Unless you think you can get something for nothing trade is happening based on banking.

If you could get that far in your mind you might then wish to understand banking

At the moment you reject banking.

We can all only see what we want to see or believe is possible. That is the nature of perception.

You create what you see in your mind.

None of use see. We just sense.

You have a blindness to the nature of banking because of your political beleifs or something that is nothing to do with the nature of banking.

And you are excessively logical.

Banking involves trust but you cant see the trust in banking.

You cannot perceive banking.

When you look at banking you see fraud.

You cant see honour and trust

When you see banking you create something that does not exist.

Are you actually shortsighted by the way? That could be part of the problem.

[Injin]

You are a fool

Good luck

[Injin]

Unless you think you can get something for nothing trade is happening based on banking.

If you could get that far in your mind you might then wish to understand banking

But people do get something for nothing all day long with banking.

The accept assurances that things have happned in lieu of evidence of those things happening. So the bankers do not bother doing them. They just say they move money, they just tell people they have had stuff.

It works really well, right up to the moment that it doesn't and then the whole economy falls off a cliff.

At the moment you reject banking.

We can all only see what we want to see or believe is possible. That is the nature of perception.

You create what you see in your mind.

What?

No, reality is. It's just there - it is external to us. While we might not perceive parts of it correctly we can't break the rules. if you don't believe me, perceive you can leap 150 feet in the air.

None of use see. We just sense.

You have a blindness to the nature of banking because of your political beleifs or something that is nothing to do with the nature of banking.

And you are excessively logical.

Banking involves trust but you cant see the trust in banking.

You cannot perceive banking.

When you look at banking you see fraud.

You cant see honour and trust

When you see banking you create something that does not exist.

Are you actually shortsighted by the way? That could be part of the problem.

I do have vision problems as it happens. So I don't see the stuff that you do - that's why I don't conflate what I am being shown with what has actually happened, I guess.

[frozen_out]

Firstly you have to understand the principal of honest banking.

If you cannot get that far then you and i cannot get past where we already are.

You're covering old ground buddy. Injin has previously admitted that the fractional reserve system isn't inherently fraudulent. It's no more fraudulent than me lending my brother my car.