Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 129

Thread: The broad method of taxation is not the problem

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Gold needs the People to back it. If the People do not value gold, it has no value.
    Equivocation fallacy. Nothing has value without people who value it. The difference between gold and FRNs is that people value gold without any government or institution telling them to.
    The people in Fiji did not value gold. They threw it away. So it was not money and it had no backing.
    Equivocation fallacy. The market value of a commodity is not what we mean by the institutional "backing" of a currency.
    FRN needs the people to back it.
    False. When it was introduced, the people didn't back it. But it had government to back it and now the people accept it.
    No matter how much government proclaims the value of FRBN, if the people do not value it, it has no backing.
    Hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy. You are claiming that the people might decide not to value FRNs even though they are needed to pay taxes, to satisfy court judgments, etc. But that is nothing but a silly notion you dreamed up. If the people need FRNs for those things, they WILL value them.
    Zimbabwean dollars was not backed by the People, and it has essentially no value, no matter how much their government decrees.
    No, the Zimbabwean dollar has no value because the government has printed too many of them, and now has no motive to levy taxes, enforce court judgments, etc. that require Zimbabwean dollars.
    FRBN and Gold hold the same "backing"
    A ludicrous fabrication.
    The only difference, one is mined.
    The other is printed.
    Such claims are self-evidently absurd. Confederate paper money became worthless after the Civil War because it had no backing. Confederate silver dimes did not.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Prove it. Show me the money.

    PS: You can't,
    Of course I can. Here:

    In practice, because banks often have access to lines of credit, and the money market, and can use day time loans from central banks, there is often no requirement for a pre-existing deposit for the bank to create a loan and have it paid to another bank.[9][10]

    The references:

    "Disyatat, P. 2010 The bank lending channel revisited.". Bank for International Settlements. "Page 2. the concept of the money multiplier is flawed and uninformative in terms of analyzing the dynamics of bank lending. Page 7 When a loan is granted, banks in the first instance create a new liability that is issued to the borrower. This can be in the form of deposits or a cheque drawn on the bank, which when redeemed, becomes deposits at another bank. A well functioning interbank market overcomes the asynchronous nature of loan and deposit creation across banks. Thus loans drive deposits rather than the other way around."

    "Paul Tucker, Money and credit: Banking and the Macroeconomy". Bank of England. " banks....in the short run.....lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will....Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account.....This 'money creation' process is constrained by their need to manage the liquidity risk from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines to which it exposes them."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

    You are destroyed. Again. And that will continue to happen every time you presume to dispute with me.
    since I've already demonstrated the factual process of Fractional Reserve Banking ... which shows you are full of crap.
    ROTFL!! Posting some silly garbage you made up is not a demonstration of anything but your hilarious misapprehensions of economic fact.
    No, your claim is false.
    My claim is self-evidently and indisputably true. When the output is of greater value than the inputs, wealth has been produced. It does not matter if someone else could have produced more, or with less.
    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.
    You demonstrated no such thing. It is not a destruction of wealth and there are not less goods. You are just baldly lying about self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.
    This is called "deductive" reasoning
    No, it's called, "makin' $#!+ up."
    - but as you have little of any reason, I am sure that is totally lost upon you, too.
    You are making a fool of yourself. But it's OK: I am here to help you.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You repeating a falsehood turns you into a liar.
    I have proved your claims are ridiculous fabrications.
    You are no Mensa member.
    I was, for many years.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, such a claim merely demonstrates your kindergarten level of logic.
    So, now you are calling the factual process of fractional reserve banking "kindergarten"....

    There is no stopping your decent into madness.

    It is equivalent to claiming that we call a poodle a poodle because it is a poodle and not a dog.
    No it is not.

    It is equivalent to calling a dog's bark - a consequence of a dog's action - to be the same thing as a the dog!

    To you, hearing a dog barking at your door means there are two dogs outside!

    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.
    Only in a bizzare redefining of money to suit your crackpot theory.

    As asked - what would happen if the majority of people withdrew their "money" from the banking system.

    If, as you claim, their deposit slips are money, nothing will happen.

    But you know darn well *something* will happen, because *shock* deposit slips are not money.

    Did you miss the class in Grade 6 math where they defined a "subset"?
    There is nothing about set theory relevant here just as geometry plays no role here in defining money either.

    Making up non-existent equivalences is certainly your strong suit.


    The deposit SLIP is merely a record.
    No.
    It is a receipt and a legal document confirming the obligation of the bank to pay you money upon certain demands. It is the proof of purchase of your deposit - no different then you get a receipt for buying a good, the bank gives you a receipt for buying a deposit.

    A deposit book is the record of the banks total obligations to you at a point in time. The deposit book is your legal copy of all the obligations of the bank to you.

    If the bank records were hypothetically destroyed, your deposit book would be satisfactory proof to the obligations of the bank to you.

    It is not the contents of your demand deposit account. You can't even figure out what a demand deposit is.
    There are no "contents" in the account other than an IOU.

    The money is not yours.

    You sold your money for a demand deposit.

    The bank's money - as it is now the bank's money - sits at the FED reserve, until lent.

    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.
    Most forms of debt are accepted in exchange but still not money.

    The entire "derivatives" market is such an exchange, and believe me, not one person in that market sees "debt" as money.
    (Though they make a lot of money off of trading debt)

    I gave them money in return for their undertaking to pay it out as I direct; the deposit slip merely records that transaction.
    So, you see that it is a transaction - an exchange of money for a service.

    But then "brain torque" ... you believe -somehow- you still have your money.

    Like paying for your cookie....but keeping the money that you paid for the cookie....hmmm, someone is stealing....or cheating.

    Wrong. The bank's obligation is generally accepted in exchange, and that makes it money.
    Again, answer my question:
    If the majority of people closed their deposit accounts, would such obligations be treated as money?

    Of course they would not - the bank would default paying the accounts and go bankrupt. The demand deposits are not money, and were never money though many people like you were fooled into thinking they were money - and as such, pay a heavy price for your folly.

    A fool and his money are soon parted.

    Flat false. Fractional reserve banking was invented through IOUs circulating as money:

    http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Commodity.html
    You through up a website of a guy who is as equally confused as you about money - and fully dispute Fractional Reserve system function.

    In any of the transaction - all of them - each and every one of them - actually exchanges money.
    The bank always lends from the $100 - it never lends debt
    The depositor always deposits from the $100 - they never deposit debt.


    The accounting of debt is not, nor creates more money.

    If you put a radioactive tracer on the $100 - you will find that tracer in every transaction.

    Never, ever, is debt traded as if it was money.


    Again, like you, he wholly depends on changing the definition of money to include the debts denominated in money - and, as a consequence, ends up in a bizarro world.


    There is specific reason why you became confused about money - it was purposeful.

    For you to willing accept the fraud used against you, you had to be convinced that the debt you held of the bank - your deposit - was "as good as money in the bank" which I mean "as good as in your safety deposit box in the bank".

    To convince you to move you money out of the safety deposit box in the bank vault and into the bank's deposit box in the bank vault, the bank had to assure you that your money was as equally safe regardless.

    But to you, nothing is more assured about your money then you holding your money.

    So the bank lied to you - it is not me lying, but telling you the truth (as difficult as you are to hearing it) - the bank lied by telling you your deposit is as good as money in your hand.

    ...which is why I challenged you to the situation of a major withdrawal of money from a bank - if you believed the bank, you know you lost all your money- where I did not believe the bank, and I still have my money - and no matter your spew, I will not be trading my money for your deposit book
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-05-2012 at 12:01 AM.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That is not an "example."
    Of course it is.

    The deposit of $100 dollars - through the fractional reserve system - finally ends up as $100 in the Federal Reserve reserve deposit for that bank.

    The bank holds ~$900 in loans (debt) of the people
    The depositors to the bank hold ~$900 deposit (debt) to the people.

    But the money amount - $100 - never changed. What did happen was a bunch of debentures were created - and are off-setting... deposits to loans.

    If everyone pays back their debt, the system works; the offsets cancel each other out.

    If someone does not pay back their debt, the system collapses; the offsets do not cancel out, and someone - the depositor - is left holding an empty hand.


    ....and that's the problem.

    For your theory of money and credit to work - that is, that debt is money - the systemic collapse could not happen because the depositor is still holding a debt instrument - a deposit - which should be trade-able at face value as if it was money.

    ...but it is not. It is worthless.

    This is why your theory utterly fails - you first roll up debt to be money, up until it cannot be paid, then you unroll the debt not to be money and claim *voila* your monetary theory "works!" - while the whole darn system crashes.

    No, sir, your deposit is not money. It is a debt obligation of the bank. And pretending that the bank will pay you back when you need it the most is a fool's folly. You will get stiffed as well all the other fool's that bought into your lie (that, admittedly, you did not create, but merely parrot)
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 11:27 PM.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Of course I can. Here:

    In practice, because banks often have access to lines of credit, and the money market, and can use day time loans from central banks, there is often no requirement for a pre-existing deposit for the bank to create a loan and have it paid to another bank.[9][10]
    You are incomplete.

    Where does this money for the loan come from?
    Answer: the central bank.

    The banks do not "magically" make up money between themselves!

    No, they go into the "Discount Window" of the Central Bank (or the FED).

    ...the discount window is an instrument of monetary policy (usually controlled by central banks) that allows eligible institutions to borrow money from the central bank, usually on a short-term basis, to meet temporary shortages of liquidity caused by internal or external disruptions.

    However, this is irrelevant to the dialogue - these funds are NOT used to create loans for you or other people - they are used to move depository receipts between banks so to maintain their reserve requirements. What this has to do with anything here is ... nothing.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I was, for many years.
    ..then they found they had erred, and asked you to leave?

    Oh and PS;
    The economists and political scientists who understand the fraud of calling depository notes "money":

    Rothbard, Jesus Huerta de Sot, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, just to name a few....
    ...and me.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-04-2012 at 11:49 PM.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    You demonstrated no such thing. It is not a destruction of wealth and there are not less goods. You are just baldly lying about self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.
    You are a simpleton.

    IF it takes you twice the material and effort to make one of X, then I - you have wasted material and labor

    For you to dig a ditch, you use and break 20 shovels, and I break none to dig the same ditch - you wasted and destroyed 20 shovels.

    The ditch is the same - but yours "cost more" - then mine, which means you wasted shovels that would be used to dig other ditches

    ...and I understand where you make your bizzaro claims regarding economics if this is utterly beyond your comprehension.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    No they do not.
    Yes, they most certainly do. Claiming that teachers, firemen, etc. just sit around all day doing nothing is simply cretinous. They are being paid for their labor.
    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.
    But you do pay the landowner and get access to services and infrastructure that government employees and contractors are paid to provide.
    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 pays the police officer, and you pay the landowner for the security that government pays the police officer to provide.

    Are you really so dense that you think it is the landowner patrolling the streets, just because he is the one you are paying for the security of your person and property?
    The government has not produced anything, which is why it needs to steal.
    That is a blatant lie that I have refuted with indisputable facts.
    The government steals my money to pay the police man.
    Because it doesn't charge the landowner for the policeman's services, even though the landowner is charging you for them.
    Again, as you hold incoherent principles, you fake understanding of cause/effect and -as always- get the wrong answer.
    Another hilarious spew of silliness from you.
    Last edited by Roy L; 04-05-2012 at 12:37 AM.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    But of course you skip right over the finding of it -- which is what is the constraint.
    No, it isn't. The expected price is the constraint.
    We have no had high inflation because the money created has been stored with the FED and not used for loans.
    I guess you were vacationing on Planet Zondo during the sub-prime loans bubble.
    Please refer to this graph:


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

    But of course, this only adds to your confusion.
    Well, at least you kept up your record of not having any argument to make.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    So, you actually deny the process of deposits and loans that is core to the Fractional Reserve Banking system.
    No, I have been trying to explain that process to you.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    If, indeed, deposits are "money", please explain what will happen if -hypothetically- the majority of people withdraw their money from the banking system.
    It will collapse, as people can't hold demand deposits, and there is not nearly enough currency in existence to pay them off.
    If your case is true, nothing much will happen.
    No, that is just your monumentally uninformed guess.
    But, both of us know, that is not the case.
    I'm not at all sure you know that, or anything.

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    So, now you are calling the factual process of fractional reserve banking "kindergarten"....
    No, I am identifying the fact that claiming demand deposits can't be money because we call them demand deposits is cretinous nonsense that even a kindergartner would rightly laugh at.
    No it is not.

    It is equivalent to calling a dog's bark - a consequence of a dog's action - to be the same thing as a the dog!

    To you, hearing a dog barking at your door means there are two dogs outside!
    I have no idea what you imagine you think you might be talking about.
    As asked - what would happen if the majority of people withdrew their "money" from the banking system.
    It would collapse, as the banks could not meet their obligations. If ordinary people could hold and transfer demand deposits, then there would be no big problem (except for the banks), because the money supply would be intact.
    If, as you claim, their deposit slips are money, nothing will happen.
    I stated explicitly that deposit slips are NOT money, stop lying.
    But you know darn well *something* will happen, because *shock* deposit slips are not money.
    <shock> As I said.
    There is nothing about set theory relevant here just as geometry plays no role here in defining money either.
    Wrong again. You claimed, idiotically, that because demand deposits are called demand deposits, they cannot also be money. That is an elementary set theory error.
    It is a receipt and a legal document confirming the obligation of the bank to pay you money upon certain demands. It is the proof of purchase of your deposit - no different then you get a receipt for buying a good, the bank gives you a receipt for buying a deposit.
    So you agree that you were just lying when you claimed the slip was itself a deposit. Good.
    There are no "contents" in the account other than an IOU.
    Which also describes a FRN, as you can verify by reading it.
    The money is not yours.
    You sold your money for a demand deposit.
    The demand deposit is generally accepted in exchange, and is therefore itself money, by definition.
    The bank's money - as it is now the bank's money - sits at the FED reserve, until lent.
    And I can use the demand deposit to satisfy almost any debt, as it is money.
    Most forms of debt are accepted in exchange but still not money.
    They are not GENERALLY accepted in exchange, which is the defining characteristic of money. You just dishonestly tried to change the subject.
    The entire "derivatives" market is such an exchange, and believe me, not one person in that market sees "debt" as money.
    (Though they make a lot of money off of trading debt)
    Derivative market debt is not money because you can't swap it for a burger at McDonalds. The contents of demand deposit accounts ARE money because you CAN swap them for a burger at McDonalds.
    So, you see that it is a transaction - an exchange of money for a service.
    No, it is a transaction that exchanges one form of money for another.
    Like paying for your cookie....but keeping the money that you paid for the cookie....hmmm, someone is stealing....or cheating.
    What service am I paying for, other than the convenience of using the bank to make payments of my money?
    Again, answer my question:
    If the majority of people closed their deposit accounts, would such obligations be treated as money?
    The banks would not be able to redeem them all in money, as people can't hold demand deposits and there would be no way to convert all the demand deposits into other forms of money that people can hold. There is not enough currency in existence.
    Of course they would not - the bank would default paying the accounts and go bankrupt.
    Nope. That would depend on the bank's asset position. If it was liquid enough, it would simply pay its depositors and lick its wounds.
    The demand deposits are not money, and were never money though many people like you were fooled into thinking they were money - and as such, pay a heavy price for your folly.
    They are definitely money. They are just money that everyone can use, but only banks can hold.
    You through up a website of a guy who is as equally confused as you about money - and fully dispute Fractional Reserve system function.
    Look at as many sites as you like. Google "create money." The great majority will say the same sort of thing.
    The bank always lends from the $100 - it never lends debt
    The depositor always deposits from the $100 - they never deposit debt.

    The accounting of debt is not, nor creates more money.
    Wrong on all counts.
    If you put a radioactive tracer on the $100 - you will find that tracer in every transaction.
    Wrong.
    Never, ever, is debt traded as if it was money.
    Wrong. Any time you write a check, debt is trading as money.
    Again, like you, he wholly depends on changing the definition of money to include the debts denominated in money - and, as a consequence, ends up in a bizarro world.
    Money IS what is generally accepted in exchange. That is not a change in the definition of money.
    So the bank lied to you - it is not me lying, but telling you the truth (as difficult as you are to hearing it) - the bank lied by telling you your deposit is as good as money in your hand.
    I've never considered my checking account balance as good as money in my hand. It's just more convenient for making certain kinds of payments.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You are incomplete.
    Not compared to your understanding of economics, I'm not.
    Where does this money for the loan come from?
    Answer: the central bank.
    Nope.
    The banks do not "magically" make up money between themselves!
    You are the one invoking magic. There is nothing magical about it.
    No, they go into the "Discount Window" of the Central Bank (or the FED).
    Only if they run short of liquidity.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, it isn't. The expected price is the constraint.
    Roy, you are an idiot.

    The ability to mine is a constraint - and only idiots like you deny it.

    Suggesting other things also that are also part of the calculation does not make this not true.

    You were never in Mensa.

    I guess you were vacationing on Planet Zondo during the sub-prime loans bubble.

    Well, at least you kept up your record of not having any argument to make.
    You do not understand the graph as predicted.
    You do not understand what "Excess Reserves" are.

    You do not know when the sub-prime bubble occurred and when it burst.

    You do not know much of anything.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, I am identifying the fact that claiming demand deposits can't be money because we call them demand deposits is cretinous nonsense that even a kindergartner would rightly laugh at.
    And since you have not passed kindergarten, only you are laughing like the fool you are.

    So, Brainaic, answer me these questions:
    - is a demand deposit a liability or an asset on the bank's accounting books?
    - is money a liability or an asset on the bank's accounting books?

    Because you do not know I will help you; the deposit is a liability, and money is an asset.

    But to your simpleton concepts of money - these are the same thing.

    But they are not the same thing - one is liability, the other an asset - hence, they are not called the same thing.

    Methinks you need to demand a refund for the poor education you received - bet you went to a government-run school, right?
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-05-2012 at 09:21 AM.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    I have no idea what you imagine you think you might be talking about.
    You are so easily lost in your own comment - you attempted a ridiculous analogy, and I corrected you (again), and now you are lost.

    You were never a Mensa member.

    It would collapse, as the banks could not meet their obligations.
    So now you agree it is a demand deposit and is not money - it is an obligation to pay money.

    If ordinary people could hold and transfer demand deposits, then there would be no big problem (except for the banks), because the money supply would be intact.
    Transfer ...to where?

    People are withdrawing their money - they are transferring to hold themselves or to a bailment - and yes, you are correct -the money supply has not changed at all, but merely who is holding it - not in the FED anymore, but in the People's pocket.

    And since the debt is not money, the money supply does not change - the debtors default.

    I stated explicitly that deposit slips are NOT money, stop lying.
    They are the receipt for the deposit - proof.
    They represent the exchange of money for said deposit.

    PS: You have a terrible definition of lying, too.
    Are you a kid or an adult?

    <shock> As I said.

    Wrong again. You claimed, idiotically, that because demand deposits are called demand deposits, they cannot also be money. That is an elementary set theory error.
    They are not money because:
    1. They are a liability, not an asset to the bank - money is never a liability, ever, to anyone. It is always an asset no matter who holds it.
    2. They are created by a transaction, they are not a measure of trade. Money is not created by a transaction, ever.
    3. They are an obligation upon an entity whereas money creates no obligation on anything or anyone.

    Since your demand deposit theory of money fails on each one of these requirements, it cannot be money - which is why you are not a mathematician nor an economist nor do you understand set theory.

    PS: A few of the questions for Mensa are of the "what things are the same and what things are different" type.
    You are no Mensa member, since you obviously could not have passed this part of the test.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-05-2012 at 09:52 AM.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Nope
    Yep. As referenced for your information.

    Only an idiot denies fact, Roy.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    No, I have been trying to explain that process to you.
    You do not understand the process at all - you get all confused to what is money and what is a debt.

    You need to step away and do it for yourself, with proper labels of what is going on, and not merely parrot what others said to you.

  23. #110
    transfer ...to where?

    People are withdrawing their money - they are transferring to hold themselves or to a bailment - and yes, you are correct -the money supply has not changed at all, but merely who is holding it - not in the FED anymore, but in the People's pocket.

    And since the debt is not money, the money supply does not change - the debtors default


    Further, today, the situation is even more dire.

    The FDIC is instituted to prevent the default on deposits - they insure them.
    Should a bank default, the FDIC will pay out the unpaid depositor... with money.

    This money comes from the Treasury, who has no money.
    The Treasury will need to sell T-bills to the FED for money. (or do you also believe a T-bill is money, too???)
    The FED will need to manufacture money to buy the T-bill.
    This will increase the money supply and cause inflation.

    If such a bank run is systemic, it will create the potential of hyper-inflation should the FED fund the Treasury, who funds the FDIC. It will be the 'monetizing of the debts" (wonder why they say that, if the debt of demand deposits was already money??? - so many questions for you and your crackpot theory to answer) that risks hyperinflation.

    So the FED will have a choice - let the default on deposits occur - creating a massive recession/depression or monetize the deposits and risk hyperinflation and the destruction of Western Civilization.

  24. #111
    I get the impression that there are a very diverse set of people with diverse backgrounds here. There are people here posting about problems that other people just don't relate to.

    I was talking about colonoscopies to friend the other day. She just had one and it cost her $4,500 even with insurance. If you go looking around on the web, you'll find people on Medicare complaining about a $50 copay with their colonoscopy. So the problem of my friend paying $4,500 for a colonoscopy goes right over the head of the Medicare recipient. When the Medicare recipient hears people talking about new health care laws, he focuses on Medicare copays and can't relate to other problems that people have. When asked about government sponsored health insurance, he'll claim that he obviously pays for his health insurance because of his $10 per month extended coverage & his $50 copay. He has no inkling of what is going on for people who in fact do pay for health insurance.

    One thing's for sure. Anybody who files anything other than the 1040ez is not going to tell you that the current income tax system isn't a huge problem for our society. Maybe if you're filthy rich and you have accountants do it for you and the money you pay doesn't impact you. More likely, you just don't make enough money for it to matter. Rich people don't care, poor people don't either. Everybody else suffers. I've had people tell me, "I usually get money back. I like to file tax returns." I guess for those people they're going to be mostly worried about the extra five dollars or so it takes to fill up their pickup truck, so they see inflation in food & fuel as a bigger problem. Whatever.
    Last edited by furface; 04-05-2012 at 11:37 AM.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    Look guys, I have a problem with all or nothing thinking. It seems to permeate on these boards. You know, you can cure all cancer with hemp oil. You can fix everything by just taxing land or by just eliminating all taxes. Everything can be traced to the Illuminati & the Rothschilds.

    It's never that simple. Things are much more complex. Cancer can only be cured by a long list of yet undiscovered drugs & therapies and economics is a complex science that seems not to work with overly simplistic ideas.
    I don't know about rest of the things but economics isn't that complicated, at least the basics.

    For example, if governments issues more & more money then things are going cost more & people are going to feel inflation
    For example, goods & services are the real wealth that determine people's living-standards, the more there are, the cheaper they'll be so for prosperity, production of goods & services needs to be incentivized, which is exactly what capitalism & free market does, those businesses that produce better goods/services at reasonable price succeed as people buy more from them while bad businesses go out of business, on the other hand, if government can just take money from people then it has little incentive to provide a good service, why would monopoly-thieves worry about providing better services??? This is precisely the reason why there are so many democracies around the world & yet people always seem to vote in the some of the most corrupt politicians!

    The mainstream wants to present economics & banking & money & such concepts as "very complex" because then the masses are turned off by it, they think it's beyond them & that precisely what those in power want, it's easier to swindle those who don't understand the details of something, & if you complicate it then fewer people will be likely to understand it or put an effort into it, leaving the few corrupt ones to exploit the ignorance of the rest

    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    I was talking about colonoscopies to friend the other day. She just had one and it cost her $4,500 even with insurance. If you go looking around on the web, you'll find people on Medicare complaining about a $50 copay with their colonoscopy. So the problem of my friend paying $4,500 for a colonoscopy goes right over the head of the Medicare recipient. When the Medicare recipient hears people talking about new health care laws, he focuses on Medicare copays and can't relate to other problems that people have. When asked about government sponsored health insurance, he'll claim that he obviously pays for his health insurance because of his $10 per month extended coverage & his $50 copay. He has no inkling of what is going on for people who in fact do pay for health insurance.
    I hope people are enjoying the wonders of the government-bred corporatist system ; this is what happens when people rely on politicians & bureaucrats rather than the evolutionary nature of the free markets!

    Here's Ron talking about prices going up on medical care & stuff a few decades back



    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    One thing's for sure. Anybody who files anything other than the 1040ez is not going to tell you that the current income tax system isn't a huge problem for our society. Maybe if you're filthy rich and you have accountants do it for you and the money you pay doesn't impact you. More likely, you just don't make enough money for it to matter. Rich people don't care, poor people don't either. Everybody else suffers. I've had people tell me, "I usually get money back. I like to file tax returns." I guess for those people they're going to be mostly worried about the extra five dollars or so it takes to fill up their pickup truck, so they see inflation in food & fuel as a bigger problem. Whatever.
    This is the problem with democracies, most people are unconcerned about the government as a whole, politicians just dangle a carrot in front of every faction about the issue(s) that they care about & people keep falling for the broken promises over & over so many times that it almost become ludicrously funny!

    Again, one MUST address the issue of incentives! What incentive someone would have to provide you a good service if they could just take money from you by force???
    Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-05-2012 at 12:36 PM.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Roy, you are an idiot.

    The ability to mine is a constraint - and only idiots like you deny it.
    Democratic accountability is likewise a constraint -- and likewise for those who deny it.
    Suggesting other things also that are also part of the calculation does not make this not true.
    Likewise with claiming that somehow you are the authority for what "constraint" means.
    You were never in Mensa.
    As you are definitely wrong about that, everything else you say becomes even less credible -- if that were possible.
    You do not understand the graph as predicted.
    You do not understand what "Excess Reserves" are.

    You do not know when the sub-prime bubble occurred and when it burst.

    You do not know much of anything.
    Content = 0. What a surprise.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    So, Brainaic, answer me these questions:
    - is a demand deposit a liability or an asset on the bank's accounting books?
    That depends on whether it is held by a depositor in that bank or by the bank in another bank.
    - is money a liability or an asset on the bank's accounting books?
    There is no item, "money" on the bank's accounting books.

    You see, dumpling, I know something about banks and their accounts because I have written annual reports for banks. You haven't, and you don't.
    Because you do not know I will help you; the deposit is a liability, and money is an asset.
    Show me ANY bank's balance sheet with an item, "money" under assets.

    Thought not.
    But to your simpleton concepts of money - these are the same thing.
    The same debt is indeed a liability for the debtor and an asset for the creditor. Duh.
    But they are not the same thing - one is liability, the other an asset - hence, they are not called the same thing.
    <sigh> You do not even know that the same debt is a liability for one party, and an asset for another party.
    Methinks you need to demand a refund for the poor education you received - bet you went to a government-run school, right?
    Actually, I hold a degree from an internationally respected university. I'm guessing you don't.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    Democratic accountability is likewise a constraint -- and likewise for those who deny it.
    There is no such thing, as fact demonstrates.

    People overwhelming were against the bailout. Bailout still happened. There is no such thing as Democratic accountability - the system carries on with no restraint. (Again, you do not understand the difference between constraint and restraint)

    Likewise with claiming that somehow you are the authority for what "constraint" means.
    Unlike you, I know how to use words based on their definitions, which is why you fall for crackpot theories so easily.

    As you are definitely wrong about that, everything else you say becomes even less credible -- if that were possible.
    You could equally claim you are the King of Sweden, and I would as equally not believe you.

    Your lack of knowledge, wisdom, comparative analysis, style ... everything... shows to me you could never be in Mensa.

    Content = 0. What a surprise.
    You do not understand what "Excess Reserves" are - and your post here does not change that.

    Until you do understand what "Excess Reserves" are - you will flop around in utter confusion, making up more crackpot theories, as you do now.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That depends on whether it is held by a depositor in that bank or by the bank in another bank.
    And as you have admitted, it is a liability - a condition that makes it "not money".

    There is no item, "money" on the bank's accounting books.
    You are definitely a child.


    You see, dumpling, I know something about banks and their accounts because I have written annual reports for banks. You haven't, and you don't.
    You make wild claims and I do not believe you.

    Show me ANY bank's balance sheet with an item, "money" under assets.
    You are a child.

    And as you have a childish attitude - and are ignorant in the face of fact, I am -like almost everyone else here- done with you.

    Idiotic children should be banned from this site.

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You are so easily lost in your own comment - you attempted a ridiculous analogy, and I corrected you (again), and now you are lost.
    No, you didn't correct anything. You just blathered some irrelevant and incomprehensible nonsense, and pretended it was a response.
    You were never a Mensa member.
    LOL!
    So now you agree it is a demand deposit and is not money - it is an obligation to pay money.
    No, you are lying about what I plainly wrote again. A demand deposit is money because it is generally accepted in exchange, and the fact that it is a liability to the bank and an asset to the depositor does not change that fact.
    Transfer ...to where?
    Exactly. Demand deposits can only be transferred between banks, not from banks to individuals. If people generally withdraw them from their banks, there is not enough other money to cover the withdrawals because the demand deposits were created in the first place to enable a mismatch in liquidity between borrower and bank. The bank accepted an illiquid loan asset in return for creating a liquid deposit liability. Naturally the banks can't redeem all the deposits thus created: the people who borrowed the money aren't paying it back, but depositors ARE demanding their deposits. If the banks had the ability to call all their loans, there would be no problem: debtors would pay off the banks, and the banks would pay off their depositors. The only reason that won't work is that the people who own the demand deposits are not the same ones who are in debt to the banks; the latter don't have the money to repay their loans.
    People are withdrawing their money - they are transferring to hold themselves or to a bailment - and yes, you are correct -the money supply has not changed at all, but merely who is holding it - not in the FED anymore, but in the People's pocket.
    People cannot hold demand deposits.
    And since the debt is not money, the money supply does not change - the debtors default.
    You are ignoring the debtors who owe the banks money.
    They are the receipt for the deposit - proof.
    They represent the exchange of money for said deposit.
    But are not themselves money, as you can't buy stuff with one.
    They are not money because:
    1. They are a liability, not an asset to the bank - money is never a liability, ever, to anyone. It is always an asset no matter who holds it.
    That is an assertion you make, but it is not supported by any facts. Debt money is PRECISELY money that IS a liability to someone.
    2. They are created by a transaction, they are not a measure of trade. Money is not created by a transaction, ever.
    Again, that is a mere assertion of your beliefs. It is not a fact nor is it supported by any facts. It is simply something you assume is true by definition, but in fact is not.
    3. They are an obligation upon an entity whereas money creates no obligation on anything or anyone.
    As above. You are merely asserting, not arguing.
    Since your demand deposit theory of money fails on each one of these requirements,
    Those "requirements" are just some $#!+ you made up. They are neither part of nor implied by the definition of money.
    it cannot be money - which is why you are not a mathematician nor an economist nor do you understand set theory.
    It is money because it is generally accepted in exchange. Case closed.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    And as you have admitted, it is a liability - a condition that makes it "not money".
    Only in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind." Debt money is precisely a liability, which is what makes it neither commodity money nor fiat money.
    You make wild claims and I do not believe you.
    I am not the one claiming 99% of economists are wrong about what money is, dumpling. You are.
    You are a child.

    And as you have a childish attitude - and are ignorant in the face of fact, I am -like almost everyone else here- done with you.

    Idiotic children should be banned from this site.
    <yawn>

  33. #119
    What incentive someone would have to provide you a good service if they could just take money from you by force???
    Think about the most outrageously poor service provider like a cable or cell phone company that is a monopoly, with all their obscure bait and switch practices, all their impossible to understand contracts, all their misleading and abusive business practices. Now multiply their bad service by 10 times and give them the right to put a gun to your head to force you to buy their reprehensible product. You've got government for the most part.

    But, I don't have a problem with some of the things that government does. I just have a problem with the way it's anti-competitive and forced on us.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    There is no such thing, as fact demonstrates.
    Silliness. The fact that most diets don't work doesn't demonstrate that there is no such thing as a diet.
    People overwhelming were against the bailout.
    Wrong. Only the honest, thoughtful and informed were against it. Most people neither understood it nor cared about it.
    Bailout still happened.
    Not in Iceland, where democratic accountability is quite a bit older and healthier than in the USA.
    There is no such thing as Democratic accountability - the system carries on with no restraint. (Again, you do not understand the difference between constraint and restraint)
    First you claim it's a restraint but not a constraint, now you claim it's neither.
    Unlike you, I know how to use words based on their definitions, which is why you fall for crackpot theories so easily.
    "money, n. ... 3. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits."
    -- Webster's New Universal Unabridged

    Any dictionary of economics, like the New Palgrave, will also define money as including demand deposits.
    Your lack of knowledge, wisdom, comparative analysis, style ... everything... shows to me you could never be in Mensa.
    LOL! Your assumption that any of those things are characteristic of Mensa members proves YOU have never been a Mensa member.
    You do not understand what "Excess Reserves" are - and your post here does not change that.
    There is nothing hard to understand about excess reserves, or the graph of them that you posted. What is hard to understand is how you imagine the graph you posted supports your claim that Fed printing of money "without constraint" since 1913 has not yet resulted in hyperinflation because after 2008 (when the Fed began paying interest on them), excess reserves grew to significant levels for the first time. What was going on for the previous 95 years?



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The stop is not the problem; the method of the stop is the problem.
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2015, 11:28 AM
  2. DHS experts now warn of a broad Syria Cyber War
    By presence in forum Syria Intervention
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2013, 08:36 AM
  3. W.H. considers broad gun control
    By Pauls' Revere in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-06-2013, 05:07 PM
  4. What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?
    By ClayTrainor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 10-14-2008, 02:14 PM
  5. Broad Index commodities funds?
    By acroso in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

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