Wealth Creation

[Injin]

FRB is not the huge issue - I think some people would love it to be the issue because it tidies things away from substantial and unaddressed issues of simple human liberty. Frankly, i think the money issue has done a pretty good job of stratifying and confusing people who would otherwise probably be nearly on the same side

If one guy can just pretend to have wealth and use that pretence to capture all the real wealth then they will always own and control everything, given the passage of time.

Violence is a more complex political problem than you seem prepared to accept at the moment.

It really isn't.

[Authoritarian]

If one guy can just pretend to have wealth and use that pretence to capture all the real wealth then they will always own and control everything, given the passage of time.

A service is also a form of real wealth, so if the banking system facilitates the wealth creation process they'll receieve their return - which will be dictated by market forces. Keeping count of who owes what to whom isn't really a 'pretence', but it is a useful way of ensuring that people get what they've been promised. That is, as long as the system isn't hijacked by people that use it to be paid for doing nothing, like the land monopolists for example.

[Injin]

A service is also a form of real wealth, so if the banking system facilitates the wealth creation process they'll receieve their return - which will be dictated by market forces. Keeping count of who owes what to whom isn't really a 'pretence', but it is a useful way of ensuring that people get what they've been promised. That is, as long as the system isn't hijacked by people that use it to be paid for doing nothing, like the land monopolists for example.

Banks (frb banks et al that is, not warehouses) say they have things they don't actually have.

This causes massive mispricing of everything as long as they get away with it.

It's fraud, it's a ****** up and it's why we have booms and busts. FRB Banks have caused more human death and misery than almost any other human institution, barring some religions and of course the state.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Injin

[Stars]

If one guy can just pretend to have wealth and use that pretence to capture all the real wealth then they will always own and control everything, given the passage of time.

The thing is, that's cobblers

Banks don't commit the fraud you claim they do, but if pressed on this assertion, your tactic is to refuse normal English usage.

So discussing it with you is near pointless

It really isn't.

In this arena too, genuine and important problems are met by you with a refusal to use English normaly until the question or problem is dropped.

useless, avoidant behaviour

[Injin]

The thing is, that's cobblers

Banks don't commit the fraud you claim they do, but if pressed on this assertion, your tactic is to refuse normal English usage.

So discussing it with you is near pointless

Yes, they do.

And no I don;t duck normal english usage. banks have no money, which they lend.

In this arena too, genuine and important problems are met by you with a refusal to use English normaly until the question or problem is dropped.

useless, avoidant behaviour

The problem is with the socially acceptable attacking of others to get a desired goal.

Sort that out and all other problems vanish. You want to look at ways to attack more gently, or to have different reasons and goals to attack for. Attacking itself is the problem.

[Authoritarian]

Banks (frb banks et al that is, not warehouses) say they have things they don't actually have.

This causes massive mispricing of everything as long as they get away with it.

It's fraud, it's a ****** up and it's why we have booms and busts. FRB Banks have caused more human death and misery than almost any other human institution, barring some religions and of course the state.

Not really, if anything the use of FRB has been increased in recent years yet the total amount of violence has lowered. Credit used to be a lot tighter, with systems used that were based on the gold standard or higher reserve ratios, yet we still experienced massive wars, like WW1 & 2, as well as all the fighting that comes with empire building.

War is about land and resource control, and fiddling with the banking system does little to remedy this.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Chef

[Injin]

Not really, if anything the use of FRB has been increased in recent years yet the total amount of violence has lowered. Credit used to be a lot tighter, with systems used that were based on the gold standard and much tighter credit controls yet we still experienced massive wars, like WW1 & 2, as well as all the fighting that comes with empire building.

War is about land and resource control, and fiddling with the banking system does little to remedy this.

The violence comes when people en masse realise they have been cheated.

It's not an instant phenomenon, it's a lot more like smoking 60 a day causes cancerous death in 25 years time.

WW1 and WW2 were both caused and paid for by FRB.

[Authoritarian]

The violence comes when people en masse realise they have been cheated.

It's not an instant phenomenon, it's a lot more like smoking 60 a day causes cancerous death in 25 years time.

WW1 and WW2 were both caused and paid for by FRB.

Violence is possible without a FRB system, and war doesn't only materialise during an economic collapse. There have been plenty of examples throughout history that demonstrate this; Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq and afghanastan etc.

It becomes very difficult to prove though because of the lack of a control, it's more or less impossible to set up two identical countries and alter just their money system to see the results.

[munro]

Wealth creation (for me) means the application of labour to land which results in an increase in value of some sort. So an example would be planting an orchard on a fertile piece of land which results in higher yields.

If you're able to harvest more apples than you consume whilst creating those apples then you've made a profit. This is one of the major differences between the public and private sectors, the public sector doesn't have to create a profit whereas the private sector does, which is why the private sector is more efficient at resource allocation.

The market value of the operations provided by the NHS could easily be dwarfed by their costs, but because they're the NHS it doesn't matter. They're still creating value, but they're not creating any net value, and the deficit needs to be made up from somewhere.

No problem. Privatise the health service. Then wait until the apple picker falls out of the tree and breaks his leg. Then he can phone round some ambulance companies, hospitals, for a quote, pick the best deal, and hope he doesn't lose the leg to gangrene before he gets it fixed. At a price he spends the rest of his life paying back.

Or he can get insurance. The assessor comes round, claims his ladder is too long/too short/too slippery/not to BS9567/he shouldn't have been picking apples when the ambient barometric pressure was less than 1015 wotsits. Either way the insurance company won't pay out, so he gets the full bill from the hospital, spends the rest of hsi life paying it back.

Of course the public sector don't make "profits" because on the whole that's the definition of the public sector. The sector provides services that the market underprovides, that generally constitute a public good. A lot of the cost of the NHS is because people think they are entitled to live forever. The NHS would be a whole lot more "efficient" if people with terminal illnesses, including old age, would just go home and die rather than demanding hideously expensive treatment because they're worth it/paid their taxes all their lives/etc etc.

[munro]

I want to examine something I read here time and again; where it seems to me that even posters I otherwise admire lapse into confusion and inconsistency.

Again and again I read that the private sector 'produces wealth' and the public sector does not. But nobody ever explains what they mean by this phrase.

It seems to me that 'Producing wealth' has at least 3 relevant meanings: 'increasing the amount of money', 'making a profit (IE transferring money from one person to another)' and 'producing a beneficial effect'.

First consider 'producing a beneficial effect', which would include producing goods and services: It is clear that many human activities are can generally be considered to be beneficial: Baking bread, healing the sick and defending borders might all be considered beneficial to the citizens of a country. Other alleged goods and services might be of doubtful benefit: Heroin manufacture and diversity enforcement come in this camp. One can (and some will) quibble over the exact balance of costs and benefits, but it appears self-evident that there is no clear dividing line here between 'private enterprise = beneficial' and 'state-funded = non-beneficial'.

Next consider 'increasing the amount of money'. Neither private enterprise nor state enterprise does this in general; only two activities do so: banks making loans and governments printing money. As it happens, the making of bank loans in the UK has historically been a private sector activity, but now that the government is a major shareholder in at least one bank, it can be seen that the making of loans can equally be a state-owned operation. Therefore there is obviously no clear dividing line here between 'private enterprise = creates money supply' and 'state-funded activity = does not increase money supply'.

Most problematically, consider 'making a profit'. This means the transfer of existing money from one person to another. It does not increase the amount of money in circulation (except for the special case of profitable bank loans); it does not imply that beneficial activity is occurring (as witness the fact that I believe heroin manufacture for street use to be a remarkably profitable activity), nor is it a prerequisite for beneficial activity to occur (consider charities and free childcare by grandparents). I concede that private sector activity is more likely to 'make a profit'. But if economic liberals want to praise private enterprise on this ground alone, they will need to explain further why making a profit should be considered a good thing of itself, when it has no necessary connection with the production of beneficial effects.

(By the way, I think there is a lot to be said for private enterprise, and I think it will often be more efficient than state activity. The quarrel I have is with the peculiar idea that the private sector alone 'produces wealth'.)

If you want a definition of wealth in terms of money, then the answer is simple; having the exclusive access to more stuff than anybody else. If you mean wealth as in living a fulfilling, satisfying life, then that's a very different proposition.

[Stars]

And no I don;t duck normal english usage. banks have no money, which they lend.

Banks lend and borrow money at the same time

I have no idea why this scares you

The problem is with the socially acceptable attacking of others to get a desired goal.

No, that's the problem you would like to solve. The above is a 'good problem', because you have a well rehearsed answer to this problem. The problems other people want addressed regarding violence, you use word games to pretend don't exist.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Stars

[Injin]

Banks lend and borrow money at the same time

I have no idea why this scares you

banks also don't lend and don't borrow but put on the appearance of doing so in order to increase their profits.

if that doesnt' scare you, you need your pulse checking.

No, that's the problem you would like to solve. The above is a 'good problem', because you have a well rehearsed answer to this problem. The problems other people want addressed regarding violence, you use word games to pretend don't exist.

So you think it's possible to phsycally attack someone and it turn out well for all concerned?

land tax and other beatings will make it all okay, I understand such fantasies are appealing.

[Authoritarian]

No problem. Privatise the health service. Then wait until the apple picker falls out of the tree and breaks his leg. Then he can phone round some ambulance companies, hospitals, for a quote, pick the best deal, and hope he doesn't lose the leg to gangrene before he gets it fixed. At a price he spends the rest of his life paying back.

Or he can get insurance. The assessor comes round, claims his ladder is too long/too short/too slippery/not to BS9567/he shouldn't have been picking apples when the ambient barometric pressure was less than 1015 wotsits. Either way the insurance company won't pay out, so he gets the full bill from the hospital, spends the rest of hsi life paying it back.

Of course the public sector don't make "profits" because on the whole that's the definition of the public sector. The sector provides services that the market underprovides, that generally constitute a public good. A lot of the cost of the NHS is because people think they are entitled to live forever. The NHS would be a whole lot more "efficient" if people with terminal illnesses, including old age, would just go home and die rather than demanding hideously expensive treatment because they're worth it/paid their taxes all their lives/etc etc.

Socialism doesn't work.

The public sector has absolutely no incentive to provide a decent service to the public because they're guaranteed to be paid regardless, the customer is the government, and as long as they're ticking the right boxes and employing their allocated quota of ethnic minorites they're doing a grand job. Cleanliness, quality of service and cost have nothing to do with it, unlike in the private sector.

Everything the gov't gets their hands on turns to cr@p and there's a sound economic reason for this, it's because they don't have to bother dealing with the impact of competition. It's why private supermarkets work when state controlled food supplies lead to shortages, restrictions and higher prices. Healthcare is no different, yet it's been weighed down with welfare statist ideological baggage since WW2 and is rarely questioned because we don't know any different.

I'd rather take my chances with private healthcare than let the gov't allocate my resources for me. It also means I don't have to beg my local health authority for treatment when things go wrong.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Chef

[Injin]

Violence is possible without a FRB system, and war doesn't only materialise during an economic collapse. There have been plenty of examples throughout history that demonstrate this; Vietnam, Falklands, Iraq and afghanastan etc.

All caused by FRB banking.

It becomes very difficult to prove though because of the lack of a control, it's more or less impossible to set up two identical countries and alter just their money system to see the results.

[Authoritarian]

All caused by FRB banking.

Is there any evidence that suggests that a lack of a FRB system leads to less state violence? Because I don't necessarily see the link.

[Injin]

Is there any evidence that suggests that a lack of a FRB system leads to less state violence? Because I don't necessarily see the link.

Guns cost money.

Peopel don't buy firearms for strangers voluntarily.

[Authoritarian]

Guns cost money.

Peopel don't buy firearms for strangers voluntarily.

Switzerland seems to get by with very few wars, despite being a natural home for banking.

Surely with all these bankers about war would be inevitable and constant, according to your theory.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Chef

[kenny dalglish]

The thing is, that's cobblers

Banks don't commit the fraud you claim they do, but if pressed on this assertion, your tactic is to refuse normal English usage.

So discussing it with you is near pointless

In this arena too, genuine and important problems are met by you with a refusal to use English normaly until the question or problem is dropped.

useless, avoidant behaviour

You really need to do some research before you post such naiive words. They do commit precisely that fraud and much more. You simply reflect the ignorance of the average person. truly you are enslaved by the banks and just a little research on the web will present you with some quite uncomfortable questions.

[babesagainstmachines]

Socialism doesn't work.

Can you provide any empirical evidence for this assertion?

I see lots of badly managed attempts at controlling people and calling it socialism have gone on. Also some attempts that were a bit better.

One thing they all have in common though is that the rest of the world stopped trading with them and made up stories about how evil they were. Some countries won't even let you in if you hold communist views, which isn't very democratic.

The we get to people saying "socialism doesn't work" like some kind of religious mantra, like it's enough to say it and we all just have to believe you.

[Stars]

They do commit precisely that fraud and much more.

Which fraud?

[DeepLurker]

No problem. Privatise the health service. Then wait until the apple picker falls out of the tree and breaks his leg. Then he can phone round some ambulance companies, hospitals, for a quote, pick the best deal, and hope he doesn't lose the leg to gangrene before he gets it fixed. At a price he spends the rest of his life paying back.

Or he can get insurance. The assessor comes round, claims his ladder is too long/too short/too slippery/not to BS9567/he shouldn't have been picking apples when the ambient barometric pressure was less than 1015 wotsits. Either way the insurance company won't pay out, so he gets the full bill from the hospital, spends the rest of hsi life paying it back.

Of course the public sector don't make "profits" because on the whole that's the definition of the public sector. The sector provides services that the market underprovides, that generally constitute a public good. A lot of the cost of the NHS is because people think they are entitled to live forever. The NHS would be a whole lot more "efficient" if people with terminal illnesses, including old age, would just go home and die rather than demanding hideously expensive treatment because they're worth it/paid their taxes all their lives/etc etc.

Executive summary : the NHS provides that essential human trait - compassion. Private entities don't care about morality or about compassion, hence the need for the NHS.

However, if you are too compassionate it conflicts with that other human trait: greed.

[babesagainstmachines]

Switzerland seems to get by with very few wars, despite being a natural home for banking.

Surely with all these bankers about war would be inevitable and constant, according to your theory.

I think you know that Switzerland is where the war criminals stash the loot. Funny that they don't have many wars, eh?

[Stars]

Is there any evidence that suggests that a lack of a FRB system leads to less state violence? Because I don't necessarily see the link.

Yes i do. North Korea does not have FRB banking and it is a peaceful worker's paradise

[Authoritarian]

Can you provide any empirical evidence for this assertion?

I see lots of badly managed attempts at controlling people and calling it socialism have gone on. Also some attempts that were a bit better.

One thing they all have in common though is that the rest of the world stopped trading with them and made up stories about how evil they were. Some countries won't even let you in if you hold communist views, which isn't very democratic.

The we get to people saying "socialism doesn't work" like some kind of religious mantra, like it's enough to say it and we all just have to believe you.

Of course, look at the general economic conditions of East and West Germany after the wall fell. Lets put it this way, people weren't exactly trying to cross to wall to flee into the East.

[Injin]

Switzerland seems to get by with very few wars, despite being a natural home for banking.

Surely with all these bankers about war would be inevitable and constant, according to your theory.

it causes war elsewhere.

With a FRB bank you can buy up an army and use it to attack someone else.

in fact, you almost have to to try and pay all the people you have fradulently promised wealth to.