Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 129

Thread: The broad method of taxation is not the problem

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I am not defending the debt money system. But you need to understand how it works, and you don't.
    And, Roy, you are equally and utterly clueless as well.

    There is no such thing as "debt" money.

    There is money.
    There is debt - a circumstance created by borrowing money.

    If your bizarre statement was at all true, there is no such thing as debt, as it would be money, therefore, why borrow when you already have it as debt, which is already what you seek....that being "money"?

    This is the consequence of crackpot theories - you end up like Roy.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    With the money from the productive part of society.
    <yawn> Aren't you the economic ignoramus who says all the money comes from the Fed anyway...?

    And btw, every time you claim that taxes can only burden the productive part of society, you are confessing (and proving) that you are an economic ignoramus.
    It is consumption of wealth.
    So is making a car. But when what is produced has more value than what is consumed in the production, that IS production of wealth. You just somehow keep yourself ignorant of that fact.
    To build House A, identical to House B for twice the cost is a destruction of wealth .. not an increase of it.
    No, that's just more false, absurd and dishonest garbage from you. For one thing, there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that private interests provide infrastructure at lower cost than government, and quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't. For another, even if one party builds a house at a cost of $1M and another builds it for $2M, if the house is worth $3M, the one that built it for $2M STILL PRODUCED WEALTH.

    You are just reliably wrong on every economic claim you make. Sorry, but them's the breaks.
    As already noted, you have no conceptual understanding of wealth, nor its creation.
    LOL! Wrong again. I just proved you are spewing anti-economic rubbish with no basis in fact.

  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    <yawn> Aren't you the economic ignoramus who says all the money comes from the Fed anyway...?
    No where else is money created.

    And btw, every time you claim that taxes can only burden the productive part of society, you are confessing (and proving) that you are an economic ignoramus.
    Actually, you own that title all by yourself, sir.

    So is making a car. But when what is produced has more value than what is consumed in the production, that IS production of wealth. You just somehow keep yourself ignorant of that fact.
    And you prove me right.

    By building a car that consumes MORE stuff for the same quality and value is a destruction of wealth for that excess that it consumed would have been used elsewhere making a new good.

    You take 2X = 1 Car.
    I take 2X = 2 Car or 1 Car and "something else"

    By delivering to you 2X costs society - an economic loss

    Again, your crackpot theories just leak everywhere.

  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, that's just more false, absurd and dishonest garbage from you. For one thing, there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that private interests provide infrastructure at lower cost than government, and quite a lot of evidence that it doesn't. For another, even if one party builds a house at a cost of $1M and another builds it for $2M, if the house is worth $3M, the one that built it for $2M STILL PRODUCED WEALTH..
    *sigh*

    Typical crackpot - confuses "price" with "value" and "wealth".

  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    There is no such thing as "debt" money.
    Demand deposits are precisely debt money. What else are they?
    There is money.
    There is debt - a circumstance created by borrowing money.
    And when borrowing money creates an obligation that is generally accepted in exchange -- as demand deposits are -- that is debt money.
    If your bizarre statement was at all true, there is no such thing as debt, as it would be money,
    Nope. You again prove your total ignorance of economics. Only demand deposit debt is generally accepted in exchange, and is therefore money. And only commercial banks are legally entitled to create demand deposits.
    therefore, why borrow when you already have it as debt, which is already what you seek....that being "money"?
    The borrower doesn't have it. He has to undertake to repay it to a bank, whereon the bank creates it in his demand deposit account.
    This is the consequence of crackpot theories - you end up like Roy.
    <yawn>

    Which fact do you deny, therefore proving you are a crackpot:

    1. Money is what is generally accepted in exchange.

    2. Demand deposits are generally accepted in exchange, and are therefore money.

    3. Under the current US monetary system -- the "Fed" -- commercial banks create demand deposits -- money -- when they lend.

    Every competent economist is aware that commercial banks create the vast majority of our money as debt. That is a debt money system.

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Demand deposits are precisely debt money. What else are they?
    They are, quoting you, Demand Deposits and are NOT money, which is why we call them "Demand Deposits"... do you ever think to why things have a particular label and not some other particular label???

    That is a legal obligation of the bank, to you - it is a deposit slip that you hold in your hand, and that is NOT money. Your deposit sits as a liability on the bank's books - and unless you regard money as a "liability" ...... (gasp, considering your philosophy...maybe you do!!!)

    You gave your money to the bank in return for that deposit slip. It is no longer your money, it is their money.

    Their money, they do whatever they want with it; they can loan it and earn interest and not you; they can deposit it with the FED and they earn, not you 0.25% interest from the FED.

    There is not one thing about all of this that makes a bank's obligation to equal "money" except some bizarre crack pot theory.

    An "IOU", which is what a demand deposit is, is never "money".

    Because you have a crackpot theory of money, suddenly an IOU - which exists by a transaction - becomes the measure and satisfaction of the transaction.

    In other words, it becomes the means, the measure and the consequence for its own self ... the creator creates itself! .... a contradictory mess.

    ...only achievable by crackpottery.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 09:54 PM.

  8. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post

    Every competent economist is aware that commercial banks create the vast majority of our money as debt. That is a debt money system.
    Your bizarre claim is utterly false.

    There are many economists who do follow your bizarre crackpottery - I never believed you could have thought up that mess - you have no brains for it.

    The best you could do is merely copy it, which is why you have little ability to explain anything about it and become so easily confused.


    There are a good deal number of other economists who do not hold to your crackpot theory and hence, avoid the pitfalls that such incomprehensible incoherent and contradictory beliefs such crackpottery creates.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 10:00 PM.

  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Wrong.
    The FED creates 100% of the money supply.
    Nope. Every competent economist is aware than commercial banks create money by lending.
    You consistently confuse IOU's to be the same as the money that the IOU's were traded for.
    No, I am merely, unlike you, knowledgeable enough in the field of economics to know that when IOUs are generally accepted in exchange, they ARE money, and that when they are created without any balancing transfer of money, that is CREATION of money.
    Wrong.
    My statement is objectively correct. Any competent real estate appraiser could inform your ignorance on that score -- if you were willing to be informed.
    Government cannot make something "more valuable" ... it is a net destroyer of wealth.
    No, that is merely a statement of religious belief, not an empirical fact. In fact, all places without government are poverty-stricken hell-holes. Only the very worst governments -- think Zimbabwe or North Korea -- is not a net creator of wealth. With a handful of exceptions, every place with a government has had higher land values than any place with no government.
    You confuse "effort" to be the same as "wealth" ... a typical Marxist point of view.... and is totally wrong.
    No, you are just baldly lying about what I have plainly written. A road, airport, water system, school, etc. is WEALTH, not "effort." Stop lying.
    Digging a hole in the ocean is a lot of work and effort - but produces zero wealth - and should you steal my money to pay for your worker, destroys capital.
    <yawn> I admit I didn't think you were stupid or dishonest enough to claim that a road, airport, sewer or water system, school, subway line, etc. is economically equivalent to a "hole in the ocean." My bad.

  10. #69

    Default

    I have no idea what is going on in this thread, but spending is the problem and taxes are the consequence.

  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    FRBN "backs" itself, like gold "backs" itself.

    There is no conceptual difference here.
    Another confession of economic ignorance. Gold does not need any government or institution to back it. The FRN does.

  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    The borrower doesn't have it. He has to undertake to repay it to a bank, whereon the bank creates it in his demand deposit account.
    The bank never creates such money.

    $100 deposit from A to Bank; Bank now has $100
    Bank deposits $10 with the FED, and loans out $90 to a borrower, "B"

    Bank has $10 with the FED and no other money.
    Borrower "B" has $90 of money to spend.
    "A" has no money, but a slip.

    B spends money with C
    C has $90 of money; B has some goods; Bank has $10 and an obligation; A has an IOU for $100.

    $90 deposit from C to Bank;

    C now has an IOU for $90
    Bank has $100 and two obligations
    A has IOU for $100.

    ...and so on.

    There is never any money created - it is the same $100 being moved about

    Because of your intense confusion, you believe that *money is being created* but there is, as shown in this example, no more than what was manufactured.... in this case, $100


    <yawn>

    Which fact do you deny, therefore proving you are a crackpot:

    1. Money is what is generally accepted in exchange.

    2. Demand deposits are generally accepted in exchange, and are therefore money.

    3. Under the current US monetary system -- the "Fed" -- commercial banks create demand deposits -- money -- when they lend.

    Every competent economist is aware that commercial banks create the vast majority of our money as debt. That is a debt money system.[/QUOTE]

  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Another confession of economic ignorance. Gold does not need any government or institution to back it. The FRN does.
    You are truly lost.

    Gold needs the People to back it. If the People do not value gold, it has no value.
    The people in Fiji did not value gold. They threw it away. So it was not money and it had no backing.


    FRN needs the people to back it.
    No matter how much government proclaims the value of FRBN, if the people do not value it, it has no backing.
    Zimbabwean dollars was not backed by the People, and it has essentially no value, no matter how much their government decrees.

    FRBN and Gold hold the same "backing"

    The only difference, one is mined.
    The other is printed.

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    "Accounting" is not a constraint ...it is merely a restraint... and you do not understand the difference.
    Then your claim is even more ignorant and absurd.
    The mining of gold is a constraint on its production - you have to find it before you can mine it, no matter how much you want gold.
    Gibberish. The mining of gold is what increases its production.
    The printing of money has no constraint on its production - you merely have to "trust" the Powers even care about "votes" (which they do not), nor do they care about destruction of wealth by inflation (given they care little about the destruction of wealth via war)
    Ah, I see, that must explain why we have had hyperinflation all these years....

  15. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You truly are a moron.
    Prediction: you will now either evade, rant, or lie.
    Palestine, 1st Century
    There was a very large disparity between rich and poor.

    The upper class was made up of the temple priests and priestly aristocracy (including the Sadducees a Jewish sect)

    The middle class was comprised of traders and merchants, artisans (stonecutters, masons, sculptors) and craftsman (metal, wood, cloth dye). The Pharisees (another Jewish sect), sages, scribes, and teachers were also a part of the middle class.

    The lower class was made of laborers (weavers, stone carriers, slaves (non-Jewish person taken into slavery because of debt), and the unemployable (lepers, blind, insane, crippled, etc.)

    The Roman government required heavy taxation of its people. Tax collectors were local employees considered to be outcasts and traitors.
    OK, so you evaded by spewing irrelevancy.

  16. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Another confession of economic ignorance. Gold does not need any government or institution to back it. The FRN does.
    You are truly lost.

    Gold needs the People to back it. If the People do not value gold, it has no value.
    The people in Fiji did not value gold. They threw it away. So it was not money and it had no backing.


    FRN needs the people to back it.
    No matter how much government proclaims the value of FRBN, if the people do not value it, it has no backing.
    Zimbabwean dollars was not backed by the People, and it has essentially no value, no matter how much their government decrees.

    FRBN and Gold hold the same "backing"

    The only difference, one is mined.
    The other is printed.

  17. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Then your claim is even more ignorant and absurd.
    So your confusion is my absurdity... LoL!

    Gibberish. The mining of gold is what increases its production.
    But of course you skip right over the finding of it -- which is what is the constraint.

    Ah, I see, that must explain why we have had hyperinflation all these years....
    We have no had high inflation because the money created has been stored with the FED and not used for loans.

    Please refer to this graph:


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...ate=2012-04-04

    But of course, this only adds to your confusion.

  18. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Which fact do you deny, therefore proving you are a crackpot:

    1. Money is what is generally accepted in exchange.

    2. Demand deposits are generally accepted in exchange, and are therefore money.

    3. Under the current US monetary system -- the "Fed" -- commercial banks create demand deposits -- money -- when they lend.

    Every competent economist is aware that commercial banks create the vast majority of our money as debt. That is a debt money system.

    So, you actually deny the process of deposits and loans that is core to the Fractional Reserve Banking system.


    You are utterly clueless and moronic - and not worth another second in dialogue.

    You serve as a great example of how bad one can mentally torque their own brain.

  19. #78

    Default

    "Modern governments don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. They spend too much money and offer way too little for the money they spend."

    I disagree. For the all the people who paid into medicare, they are receiving 3x the amount that they put in.

    We are the ones who will be phukted
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  20. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    But they are. If they are government employees, they obtain 100% of their living from the production of others.
    Nope. They trade their own production for the production of others. You are simply lying. It is in fact the landowner qua landowner, not the government employee, who obtains 100% of his living from the production of others.
    IF such services were valued, people would voluntarily buy them.
    They do. They voluntarily pay landowners a lot of money for the services and infrastructure government employees and contractors provide.
    Since it requires force and violence to seize funds to feed government employees, their services are not valued.
    Wrong again. It only requires force and violence to feed government employees because the value they produce is being given away to landowners in return for nothing rather than recovered to pay those who create it. Your cretinous claim is logically equivalent to claiming that food purchased with food stamps is of no value, because the money used to buy it was obtained by force of violence.
    Because they demand no competition, thus remain the only lousy providers of such services also does not render such service as "valued", but merely "required".
    False, as proved above. The value of land measures the value of their services.

  21. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    *sigh*

    Typical crackpot - confuses "price" with "value" and "wealth".
    <sigh> Typical lying economic ignoramus -- makes claims without evidence, even when already proved wrong.

  22. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Nope. They trade their own production for the production of others.
    No they do not.


    I pay the grocer for his goods and I get his goods.
    I am the customer because I pay him for his goods.
    I do not pay the government and get the grocer's food.

    I do not pay the police man.
    The government pays the police man.
    I am not the customer and the police man is not giving his service to me.
    He gives it to the government, who pays him

    The government has not produced anything, which is why it needs to steal.

    The government steals my money to pay the police man.

    Again, as you hold incoherent principles, you fake understanding of cause/effect and -as always- get the wrong answer.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 10:37 PM.

  23. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    <sigh> Typical lying economic ignoramus -- makes claims without evidence, even when already proved wrong.
    Stunning and bizarre exposure of your mind - and it is empty.

  24. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    No where else is money created.
    Every competent economist knows that private commercial banks create money -- demand deposits -- by lending.
    And you prove me right.
    No, it's just that my proofs that you are wrong are closer to proving you are right than your ludicrous and laughable attempts to prove that you are right.
    By building a car that consumes MORE stuff for the same quality and value is a destruction of wealth for that excess that it consumed would have been used elsewhere making a new good.
    Wrong. What you claim (without evidence) "would have" happened does not alter what DID happen: materials and labor of lower value were expended to produce something of higher value. That is PRODUCTION OF WEALTH.
    You take 2X = 1 Car.
    I take 2X = 2 Car or 1 Car and "something else"

    By delivering to you 2X costs society - an economic loss
    No, it does not, unless the car is worth less than 2X. You are making a false, absurd and dishonest claim that no wealth is ever produced unless no one could have produced it more efficiently. That claim is just self-evidently and indisputably false. It is absurd. And it is dishonest. It is also stupid, like most of your other economic claims.
    Again, your crackpot theories just leak everywhere.
    Your claims are just objectively false, absurd, and laughable.

  25. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Your bizarre claim is utterly false.
    It is a fact known by every competent economist.
    There are many economists who do follow your bizarre crackpottery
    Thanks for the blatant self-contradiction -- and admission that you are lying.
    - I never believed you could have thought up that mess - you have no brains for it.
    ROTFL!! In the local Mensa group, I was known as "the smart one."
    The best you could do is merely copy it, which is why you have little ability to explain anything about it and become so easily confused.
    Stop lying. I have explained it in terms I thought might be simple enough for you to understand. Guess not.
    There are a good deal number of other economists who do not hold to your crackpot theory and hence, avoid the pitfalls that such incomprehensible incoherent and contradictory beliefs such crackpottery creates.
    Name one, and provide a quote to support your claim.

  26. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Every competent economist knows that private commercial banks create money -- demand deposits -- by lending.
    Prove it.
    Show me the money.

    PS: You can't, since I've already demonstrated the factual process of Fractional Reserve Banking ... which shows you are full of crap.

    Wrong. What you claim (without evidence) "would have" happened does not alter what DID happen: materials and labor of lower value were expended to produce something of higher value. That is PRODUCTION OF WEALTH.
    No, your claim is false.

    By example and reason, I demonstrated that using more material to create an equivalent good is a destruction of wealth. In the end, there is less goods.

    This is called "deductive" reasoning - but as you have little of any reason, I am sure that is totally lost upon you, too.

  27. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    It is a fact known by every competent economist.
    You repeating a falsehood turns you into a liar.
    ROTFL!! In the local Mensa group, I was known as "the smart one."
    You are no Mensa member.

  28. #87

    Default

    Roy,

    To expose your crackpot theory of money:

    If, indeed, deposits are "money", please explain what will happen if -hypothetically- the majority of people withdraw their money from the banking system.

    If your case is true, nothing much will happen.

    But, both of us know, that is not the case.

  29. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    They are, quoting you, Demand Deposits and are NOT money, which is why we call them "Demand Deposits"...
    No, such a claim merely demonstrates your kindergarten level of logic. It is equivalent to claiming that we call a poodle a poodle because it is a poodle and not a dog. Demand deposits are just one kind of money, though they are the dominant kind in a debt money system. Other kinds of money are coins and paper currency.
    do you ever think to why things have a particular label and not some other particular label???
    Did you miss the class in Grade 6 math where they defined a "subset"?
    That is a legal obligation of the bank, to you - it is a deposit slip that you hold in your hand, and that is NOT money.
    The deposit SLIP is merely a record. It is not the contents of your demand deposit account. You can't even figure out what a demand deposit is.
    Your deposit sits as a liability on the bank's books - and unless you regard money as a "liability" ...... (gasp, considering your philosophy...maybe you do!!!)
    Of course a debt is a liability for the debtor, though most forms of debt are not generally accepted in exchange, and are therefore not money.
    You gave your money to the bank in return for that deposit slip. It is no longer your money, it is their money.
    No, that's ridiculous garbage. I gave them money in return for their undertaking to pay it out as I direct; the deposit slip merely records that transaction.
    Their money, they do whatever they want with it; they can loan it and earn interest and not you; they can deposit it with the FED and they earn, not you 0.25% interest from the FED.

    There is not one thing about all of this that makes a bank's obligation to equal "money" except some bizarre crack pot theory.
    Wrong. The bank's obligation is generally accepted in exchange, and that makes it money.
    An "IOU", which is what a demand deposit is, is never "money".
    Flat false. Fractional reserve banking was invented through IOUs circulating as money:

    http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html

    Read it and try to understand it.
    Because you have a crackpot theory of money, suddenly an IOU - which exists by a transaction - becomes the measure and satisfaction of the transaction.
    I made no such claim. Stop lying about what I have plainly written.
    In other words, it becomes the means, the measure and the consequence for its own self ... the creator creates itself! .... a contradictory mess.

    ...only achievable by crackpottery.
    More nonsense. I stated clearly that banks create debt money, not that it creates itself.

  30. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The bank never creates such money.

    $100 deposit from A to Bank; Bank now has $100
    Bank deposits $10 with the FED, and loans out $90 to a borrower, "B"

    Bank has $10 with the FED and no other money.
    Borrower "B" has $90 of money to spend.
    "A" has no money, but a slip.

    B spends money with C
    C has $90 of money; B has some goods; Bank has $10 and an obligation; A has an IOU for $100.

    $90 deposit from C to Bank;

    C now has an IOU for $90
    Bank has $100 and two obligations
    A has IOU for $100.

    ...and so on.

    There is never any money created - it is the same $100 being moved about

    Because of your intense confusion, you believe that *money is being created* but there is, as shown in this example, no more than what was manufactured.... in this case, $100
    That is not an "example." It is merely your crackpot misapprehension of how banking works. You simply made it up, as you make up pretty much everything you claim about economics. Read "Modern Money Mechanics," published by the US Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and try to at least minimally inform yourself:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics

  31. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jingles View Post
    I have no idea what is going on in this thread, but spending is the problem and taxes are the consequence.
    If you think spending is the problem, go to Somalia to see the "solution."

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •