The broad method of taxation is not the problem

[Black Flag]

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.

[Black Flag]

Typical lying economic ignoramus -- makes claims without evidence, even when already proved wrong.

Stunning and bizarre exposure of your mind - and it is empty.

[Roy L]

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.

[Roy L]

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.

[Black Flag]

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.

[Black Flag]

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.

[Black Flag]

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.

[Roy L]

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.

[Roy L]

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

[Roy L]

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."