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

[Injin]

...to follow...

[aliveandkicking]

great! That seems to solve that one!

Progress!

[aliveandkicking]

Injin wrote by private message

I borrow a Fishfork from Dave.

I use it for a fortnight.

I give Dave his fishfork back - my loan is completed.

---------------------

I borrow a Fishfork frrom Dave.

I let Carla use the fishfork in exchange for a glass of her orange juice. It's still Daves fishfork.

My payment to her for the orange juice was allowing her the use of Daves fishfork, not giving her ownership of Daves fishfork.

If Carla thinks that she owns the fishfork now, she is mistaken.

-----------

I have no problem with the above

But to enable the correct payment:

I borrow a fishfork from Dave

Dave has a knife i want to buy from him costing one fishfork

I approach Dave with his fishfork

Dave says 'you owe me that fishfork. I need another fishfork for the purchase.' If you complete the purchase then you will owe me two fishforks.

I object to that and borrow one fishfork from Carla.

Dave takes Carlas fishfork. I take the knife

I owe two fishforks.

Then we have the banking example i gave.

I am saying you are only obligated to pay the bank pounds once you believe you have passed the pounds to another customer who believes he receives pounds so that he is happy to give you goods in return in a fair honest trade.

There is no requirement that links those pounds to the pounds you give so that those specific pounds have to be paid to the bank. The bank does not care. Nobody cares. All the bank cares about is that you remove its liability by returning an equal amount of pounds.

Injin answers

Oh sure.

But it has no moral right to other pounds, only to it's own pounds.

We settle debts using any old pound because practically we can't find the real pounds that are owed. This is jst a limit of practicalities, it is not a principle.

I answer:

I dont follow this.

The principal is that the bank wants the debt repaid. It gives out sterling liabilities owed to the sellers. It expects to get back sterling liabilities owed to you so it can cover the liability to the seller.

[Injin]

I borrow a Fishfork from Dave.

I use it for a fortnight.

I give Dave his fishfork back - my loan is completed.

---------------------

I borrow a Fishfork frrom Dave.

I let Carla use the fishfork in exchange for a glass of her orange juice. It's still Daves fishfork.

My payment to her for the orange juice was allowing her the use of Daves fishfork, not giving her ownership of Daves fishfork.

If Carla thinks that she owns the fishfork now, she is mistaken.

-----------

I have no problem with this

I borrow a fishfork from Dave

Dave has a knife i want to buy from him costing one fishfork

I approach Dave with his fishfork

Dave says 'you me that fishfork. I need another fishfork for the purchase.' If you complete the purchase then you will owe me two fishforks.

I object to that and borrow one fishfork from Carla.

Dave takes Carlas fishfork. I take the knife

I owe two fishforks.

Ok so you agree thta if Dave gets his initial fishfork back then he can't make a loss?

[Injin]

I dont follow this.

The principal is that the bank wants the debt repaid. It gives out sterling liabilities owed to the sellers. It expects to get back sterling liabilities owed to you so it can cover the liability to the seller.

you've just said, the bank hasn't got any liabilities to the seller.

[aliveandkicking]

Ok so you agree thta if Dave gets his initial fishfork back then he can't make a loss?

No.

I have to word it like that to avoid you thinking it ok to refuse to pay for the knife

[aliveandkicking]

you've just said, the bank hasn't got any liabilities to the seller.

Where did i say this???

The bank has liabilities to the seller before you pay the bank

The bank has liabilities to the seller after you have paid the bank

But after you have paid the bank the banks liabilities are covered by what you have paid the bank

[Injin]

No.

I have to word it like that to avoid you thinking it ok to refuse to pay for the knife

but I did pay for the kinife - I let Carla have use of Daves money for a time.

[Injin]

Where did i say this???

The bank has liabilities to the seller before you pay the bank

The bank has liabilities to the seller after you have paid the bank

But after you have paid the bank the banks liabilities are covered by what you have paid the bank

Why would th ebank have any liabilities to Carla unless the bank sepreately agreed with Carla?

They could just say "Oh, another of the piunds I own, I'll have that back, thank you."

[aliveandkicking]

You get a bit tied up with the concept of ownership.

We dont have ownership in this world. All we have is the right to use something.

..........

Carla lends Dave a fishfork. Dave has the right to use it.

Dave lends you the fishfork that he has the right to use so you have the right to use it.

Dave says he will sell you the rights for a knife if you give him rights for a fishfork that he does not yet have

Dave therefore wants you to transfer to him some rights you have over a fishfork so that he gets some benefit from those rights

But dave has given you the right to use the fishfork you possess. If you transfer this right back to him then you have returned the right he gave to you and not given him the additional rights he expects to get from selling you something.

It is not about ownership but rights.

You know that what you are doing is not right

You know you cheat Dave with your logic.

But your logic is wrong because you think a human being can have ownership.

Nobody owns anything unless another person agrees that they do own it.

Society has to agree to ownership or you just force ownership with bombs and bullets.

There is no moral ownership on this earth.

You cant possess something unless you have the moral right to it.

It is about rights rather than possession.

[Injin]

You get a bit tied up with the concept of ownership.

We dont have ownership in this world. All we have is the right to use something.

Where do we get that right from?

..........

Carla lends Dave a fishfork. Dave has the right to use it.

Dave lends you the fishfork that he has the right to use so you have the right to use it.

Dave says he will sell you the rights for a knife if you give him rights for a fishfork that he does not yet have

Dave therefore wants you to transfer to him some rights you have over a fishfork so that he gets some benefit from those rights

But dave has given you the right to use the fishfork you possess. If you transfer this right back to him then you have returned the right he gave to you and not given him the additional rights he expects to get from selling you something.

It is not about ownership but rights.

You know that what you are doing is not right

You know you cheat Dave with your logic.

But your logic is wrong because you think a human being can have ownership.

Nobody owns anything unless another person agrees that they do own it.

Society has to agree to ownership or you just force ownership with bombs and bullets.

There is no moral ownership on this earth.

You cant possess something unless you have the moral right to it.

It is about rights rather than possession.

if human beings can't have ownership, why does Dave want "his" stuff back?

[aliveandkicking]

Why would th ebank have any liabilities to Carla unless the bank sepreately agreed with Carla?

They could just say "Oh, another of the piunds I own, I'll have that back, thank you."

I cant follow you

[aliveandkicking]

Where do we get that right from?

if human beings can't have ownership, why does Dave want "his" stuff back?

He wants his rights back

[Injin]

I cant follow you

If the bank has rights over all the pounds (because it issued them or whatever) then any time it sees one, it can take it back.

It doesn't need to agree anything with anyone.

(Leaving aside the ownership thing for a moment.)

[Injin]

He wants his rights back

how do I give him his rights back unless I have more rights than he does?

And if I have more rights than he does, why would I?

[aliveandkicking]

Where do we get that right from?

Various methods.

If a lion eats a man then the lion has the rights to the food while it can eat the food. It has the rights because it has the power to have the rights.

If a flock of sheep cooperate together to fend off a wolf then they have the rights to the grass they eat

A farmer has the rights to eat the sheep on his land.

A society gives rights to its citizens. In the UK the queen allows the citizens to have rights to the land while the UK citizens allow the queen to have rights to the land over and above all other rights holders.

A society constructs abstract laws that courts and lawyers and police and politicians are then seen to enforce.

In the west trade is based on established case law so that based on law agrreement are made that courts decide if there is dispute

In Russia law is decided by each individual official based on the merits or not of the particular case and the whims and fashions and tiredness or greed of whoever is the local responsible official. There is no law as we understand in the west. You have no legal rights. You only have the ability to be persuasive to achieve what you want. The president is the person with the power. Without the power you have nothing. You can have the intellectual power or the military power but without power you are a joke.

In the west you can be a joke and have power and have the rights enforced by the courts if you have the power to go to the courts to pay a lawyer to argue for your rights.

And all thru this you are dealing with human beings who have some kind of moral code as a group.

And humans are tribal

One tribe can enforce the right to eat the bodies of another tribe.

there is no moral code that serves to decide things.

Banking functions using law.

Banking as we know it is not possible in Russia.

In Russian if you pay a person for work before the work is done you get no work done.

In Russia, the russian must pay the western banker in the west before the westerners begin work.

If you pay in advance it will be a gift.

In Russia if you have the power of the personality or the military you can get things done. But you cannot get things done by appealing to law.

Your distruction of the western banking is like the method the Russians use.

They get the west to develope the oil then they say thanks and take the work done without payment.

Russia is changing but it remains a difficult place to do western style contractual aggreements which a russian court will enforce. It depend on who you have the ear of.

In injins alternate reality you need to have the ear of injin. Injin is the law and president of this universe. No other authority matters.

It is like Russia. Not the same but similar. A demogogue rules and is respected because he has the power to do what he does with impunity. And he can do that because he is powerful.

Killing is admired. It shows you have the power to do that.

In the west you have to pretend you follow the laws and kill people legitimately.

Russia is more honest to a certain point of view but it has nothing to do with law.

Injins universe has nothing to do with any law. It is injins law.

[Injin]

Well............

Why are you trying to persuade me then?

You should just say "you owe whatever I tell you you do, bitch."

[aliveandkicking]

Well............

Why are you trying to persuade me then?

You should just say "you owe whatever I tell you you do, bitch."

If you are a bank operating outside of the west you can say and do whatever you want because property rights are not respected.

In the West existing property rights are fully protected by the courts with systems of laws built up over generations of trade.

I can send money all over the world via western banking and my transactions will give me rights to receive my money or pay another person.

But i cannot do that outside of western banking.

In Injin banking i cannot even get paid for a simple transaction because the Injins are happy to cheat me.

[Injin]

If you are a bank operating outside of the west you can say and do whatever you want because property rights are not respected.

In the West existing property rights are fully protected by the courts with systems of laws built up over generations of trade.

I can send money all over the world via western banking and my transactions will give me rights to receive my money or pay another person.

But i cannot do that outside of western banking.

In Injin banking i cannot even get paid for a simple transaction because the Injins are happy to cheat me.

Yes you can.

You have to not have a bank though!

[aliveandkicking]

how do I give him his rights back unless I have more rights than he does?

And if I have more rights than he does, why would I?

The principal in western banking is that the banker respects your property rights and the bank expects you to respect their property rights

The rest is just trading these rights

If you refuse to see a person has rights then you cannot understand western banking.

You refuse to see laws other than your own

You refuse to see the authority of a persons rights over and above your own authority to decide what is right.

Therefore you can never trade.

You prefer to cheat because it is easier for you.

You have no honour. You just lie and cheat and steal.

Honour means nothing to you.

[aliveandkicking]

Yes you can.

You have to not have a bank though!

We went down this road before.

You refused to accept Bobs credit system.

You refused to honour Bob

You chose instead to cheat him because it was easier for you.

[Injin]

Here is our basic problem.

I am operating from an empirical perspective - like banking can be looked at as a scientific/logical problem that can be worked out.

You are looking at it like a religion or social entity, which has to have all it's problems resolved by talking/persuasion/violence/authority.

For you, the bank of england is a special entity, with power to decide what is and isn't money.

For me, the bank of england is a few fat men in a room with a printer and some PC's and isn't different to any other such room with the exact same stuff.

for you, a court is a special room with special people who can make decisions about what is and isn't valid.

For me, a court is a room where people chat their opinions and it's not speical in any way, shape or form.

The problem you have is that I am factually 100% correct.

The problem I have is that 90% of people operate as though you are correct and not me.

[Injin]

We went down this road before.

You refused to accept Bobs credit system.

You refused to honour Bob

You chose instead to cheat him because it was easier for you.

You refused to see that bob doesn't have a credit system.

He just has a PC.

Well, so what?

So do I.

[aliveandkicking]

Here is our basic problem.

You are looking at it like a religion or social entity, which has to have all it's problems resolved by talking/persuasion/violence/authority.

No

The problem is that you get to decide what is true or false

You get to decide what i believe

I believe banking is based on agreement

You get to replace my belief and say i am saying it is based on violence. That is false but falsehood is second nature to you. You are a cheat and fraud by nature.

Nothing i say matter because i have no vote

It is all about what you decide.

You are the only authority.

I am irrelevant to you.

I say aggreement and you say it is violence.

I say that bob uses his honest and integrity to operate a trustworthy system and you say that all bob has is a pc

And you say you have a pc that is equal to bobs system

But you are a cheat

You have no honour and only understand fraudulent behaviour.

[Injin]

No

The problem is that you get to decide what is true or false

No, I don't.

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

You get to decide what i believe

I believe banking is based on agreement

You get to replace my belief that it is based on violence

Nothing i say matter because i have no vote

It is all about what you decide.

You are the only authority.

I am irrelevant to you.

I say aggreement and you say it is violence.

I say that bob uses his honest and integrity to operate a trustworthy system and you say that all bob has is a pc

And you say you have a pc

But you are a cheat

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.