Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Then perhaps you should read more attentively. The debt-based supplement to the predomoinantly debt-free currency would be issued not as an IOU, but in exchange for an IOU. Compulsion in choice of currency only for the payment of taxes, otherwise trade in whatever. Therefore compulsion, therefore no free market (and therefore also, completely ******ing evil, by the by.) If you are going to have a state at all (and this is where we differ), then it comes with a state currency. It seems fair enough that the state should then be paid in its own currency. Only at the point of payiing tax do you need to change your wedge into the state currency. Not much of an imposition in my book. There is no state. Just people. You are saying some people should be allowed by everyone else to rob and force whoever they like with impunity. And this isn't much of an imposition! I'm sorry for laughing because it's so serious, but jesus it's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The proposed publicly issued currency would not be an IOU, any more than a persistently circulating tenner is now. Persistently circulating, publicly issued, debt-free tokens are a much cheaper option for the community of money users (that's us) than the equivalent number of transient, debt-based tokens borrowed at interest from commercial bankers. I don't mind money created out of thin air, it's very convenient and cheap to produce. Who creates it, how they create it, and what they do with it are the important issues. The tenner says "I shall pay the bearer 10 pounds upon demand"... of course it is a BoE debt. As Chef pointed out, letting government print debt free money without any anchor is a recipe for a total disaster. RBS etc tenner notes are backed by equivalent BoE (i.e. the government, or the people) backed electronic debt. The solution is indeed a utility bank and a casino bank model where casino bank are allow to do what they like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Which one(s)? I do not know without asking you. You have just said " not much of an impositon" which contradicts the point which I believe is in error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Therefore compulsion, therefore no free market (and therefore also, completely ******ing evil, by the by.) There is no state. Just people. You are saying some people should be allowed by everyone else to rob and force whoever they like with impunity. And this isn't much of an imposition! I'm sorry for laughing because it's so serious, but jesus it's funny. We've been over the unavoidable tension between the individual and the collective before - several times. We know your position, which most consider unworkable, even incoherent. To many of us, the tension is a realtime process which warrants constant vigilance and adjustment. No doubt there are better and worse ways of dealing with it. It's not an issue which can be "solved" once and for all by refusing to allow collectives into the ontology of debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I do not know without asking you. You have just said " not much of an impositon" which contradicts the point which I believe is in error. Ok, so I now have a clue about which of the four points is 'in error' - it contradicts 'not much of an imposition'. I still can't tell which one and what the contradiction is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 We've been over the unavoidable tension between the individual and the collective before - several times. And you've never proven the collective yet. Time to drop the concept? it's not some collective who takes your money at gunpoint, it's just some guy. We know your position, which most consider unworkable, even incoherent. Which means nowt. True is true is true. To many of us, the tension is a realtime process which warrants constant vigilance and adjustment. No doubt there are better and worse ways of dealing with it. It's not an issue which can be "solved" once and for all by refusing to allow collectives into the ontology of debate. No, it can be solved by decrying violence completely and forever, no matter who performs it. In your own time. Hint : start with yourself and then go out from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 No, it can be solved by decrying violence completely and forever, no matter who performs it. In your own time. Hint : start with yourself and then go out from there. That's not going to happen any time soon, unfortunately. Even Buddhist monasteries have tension between the individual monks and the collective. In the meantime, we do our best. Do you consider sarcasm to be a form of violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 That's not going to happen any time soon, unfortunately. Even Buddhist monasteries have tension between the individual monks and the collective. No, they don't. There is only tensions between individuals, some of whom bu115hit about their personal preferences being some moral code. In the meantime, we do our best. Do you consider sarcasm to be a form of violence? No, i consider violence to be a form of violence and dodging the obvious to be a form of ego defense. it's really easy, this. (Except in what it means for our personal relationships) Do you threaten anyone? Use violence on anyone? No? Do you know anyone who does or who has done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Do you threaten anyone? Use violence on anyone? No? Do you know anyone who does or who has done? Are you 'starting with yourself' here, Injin? Just asking, prompted by my sense of contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) No-one is setting interest rates. The market setting of IR that we both support is a natural consequence of a persistently circulating currency, issued debt-free. No central bank, no state guarantees, no bailouts. To address the need for flexibility I support regular reverse auctions of new money at which HMG receives competing bids in the form of IOUs, and accepts the most attractive. This would both set wholesale interest rates and enable the market to adjust the quantity of money to some extent. The change is that the existential cost of this temporary, debt-based (minor) component of the money supply returns to the public purse, rather than to licenced counterfeiters. Yes, the technicalities of exactly how much new issuance is optimal, and to satisfy which criteria, are open questions. However, the present commercial issuance for speculation rather than productive investment is about as bad as can be, and the need for reform is urgent. If the proposed MIA got the quantity badly wrong, as you suggest it might, then the market would shift correspondingly towards complementary currencies. Self-correcting market forces would operate far more effectively after reform. The Bank of England already operate under this framework, they're obliged to return a portion of their post tax profits back to the Treasury. So instead of replacing the whole shooting match -which would cause major upheavel- we could just ensure 100% of their profits are taxed away. In the grand scheme of things this won't make a lot of difference though and it's technical nature would keep the majority of people from taking an interest. It's the sort of thing that gets mentioned in a monthly report and picked up in the Economics section of the Telegraph. Minor stuff. I don't believe any of this would prevent speculation though, how could it? The land market would still operate as usual. Edited February 19, 2011 by Chef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Ok, so I now have a clue about which of the four points is 'in error' - it contradicts 'not much of an imposition'. I still can't tell which one and what the contradiction is. You claimed earlier that "we are forced to conduct almost all of our business using the bankers' expensive, ephemeral, rent-a-currency money tokens" . You knew this because of your "observation, research, experience and logic". That initial claim is not true therefore your methodology (of which you list four elements) must be in error. Even the payment of taxes (if any are claimed to be due from you) does not have to be with those "banker money tokens" as you appeared to (unknowingly ?) point out with "Only at the point of payiing tax do you need to change your wedge into the state currency. Not much of an imposition in my book". I still do not know which element is in error. Perhaps it is all four ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 You claimed earlier that "we are forced to conduct almost all of our business using the bankers' expensive, ephemeral, rent-a-currency money tokens" . You knew this because of your "observation, research, experience and logic". That initial claim is not true therefore your methodology (of which you list four elements) must be in error. Even the payment of taxes (if any are claimed to be due from you) does not have to be with those "banker money tokens" as you appeared to (unknowingly ?) point out with "Only at the point of payiing tax do you need to change your wedge into the state currency. Not much of an imposition in my book". I still do not know which element is in error. Perhaps it is all four ? Thank you for your clarification. The initial claim is about the status quo, about how business is conducted now. So, by aggregate value, what proportion of normal business activity do you think is conducted using bank credit (broad) money? The second statement, about the possible use of other (complementary) currencies and the payment of taxes, is about the world after the proposed reform. That they are in contradiction is no surprise, since they are about two different and deliberately contrasted worlds (one real, one hypothsized.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The initial claim is about the status quo, about how business is conducted now.So, by aggregate value, what proportion of normal business activity do you think is conducted using bank credit (broad) money? A wild guess on my part would put it above 99%. I only took issue with your post because you claimed that the said conducted business was forced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 A wild guess on my part would put it above 99%. I only took issue with your post because you claimed that the said conducted business was forced. On that he is absolutely correct. Banks wouldn't exist without the laws that create them, for a start, never mind the legal tender and tax elements that force us all to use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 A wild guess on my part would put it above 99%. I only took issue with your post because you claimed that the said conducted business was forced. Yes, 99%+. For any significant business activity, it is the only game in town. Banks, accountants, the state authorities, suppliers, customers and competitors will exert irresistable pressure to use it. If you don't, you will go out of business rapidly. You are indeed forced to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 On that he is absolutely correct. I don't think he is correct. Banks wouldn't exist without the laws that create them, for a start, never mind the legal tender and tax elements that force us all to use them. I agree with the former but not the latter. Can you explain which legal tender or tax law forces you to use a bank or one of their promissory notes ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Nice to see you back Injin. Do you consider sarcasm to be a form of violence? I think your avatar is intuitively correct on this point Spaniard- this is an arena where violence is often intended- we strike at each others on-line identities and hope to land a blow- that's what makes these forums so oddly compelling both as participant and onlooker. Injin prefers to keep his definition of violence exclusive to the physical realm- allowing emotional/psychological pressures into the mix muddies the water beyond all hope of resolution- at least in the simple terms he wishes to describe reality. (See how the above paragraph is itself an example of attempted avatar GBH- I swing my sword...only to hit empty air as usual as injin slides away into futher layers of obfusaction. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 For any significant business activity, it is the only game in town. Not the only. Banks, accountants, the state authorities, suppliers, customers and competitors will exert irresistable pressure to use it. True. However if you are offering a service worth having you have pressures of your own to exert. You can also be in a position to decide who to conduct business with. If you don't, you will go out of business rapidly. Not necessarily,see above. You are indeed forced to use it. Logical conclusion is in error, see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I don't think he is correct. I agree with the former but not the latter. Can you explain which legal tender or tax law forces you to use a bank or one of their promissory notes ? All laws force. It's what the word "law" means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Nice to see you back Injin. I think your avatar is intuitively correct on this point Spaniard- this is an arena where violence is often intended- we strike at each others on-line identities and hope to land a blow- that's what makes these forums so oddly compelling both as participant and onlooker. Injin prefers to keep his definition of violence exclusive to the physical realm- allowing emotional/psychological pressures into the mix muddies the water beyond all hope of resolution- at least in the simple terms he wishes to describe reality. (See how the above paragraph is itself an example of attempted avatar GBH- I swing my sword...only to hit empty air as usual as injin slides away into futher layers of obfusaction. ) If there is no real violence, then you are left sorting out your own ghosts and anxieites. So why not go and do that rather than wanting to really force real peopel just to sort out your own emotional state? Your feelings are your responsibility, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 All laws force. It's what the word "law" means. I agree. Which of those laws/forces state that you have to use a bank or one of their promissory notes ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I agree. Which of those laws/forces state that you have to use a bank or one of their promissory notes ? The legal tender law, all taxes, every fine and every licence. Not many then, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The legal tender law, all taxes, every fine and every licence. Not many then, eh? The legal tender law does not compel bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any tax that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any fine that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any licence that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The legal tender law does not compel bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any tax that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any fine that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. I am not aware of any licence that requires bank and bank promissory note usage. They all compel payment. Can you tell me the sources you know to go to in order to acquire legal tender for me please? Also, what do you mean by "bank promissory note?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 They all compel payment. They do in certain circumstances, but those circumstances do not have to include bank or bank promissory note usage. Can you tell me the sources you know to go to in order to acquire legal tender for me please? The ultimate sources, by definition, would be the Royal Mint or the Bank of England. There could of course, given such circumstances, an unlimited amount of subsidiaries. Also, what do you mean by "bank promissory note?" By definition a promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer. In the context of our conversation here it is most likely to be a Bank of England note, but not necessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.