ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags socialism , worker cooperatives

Reply
Old 12th October 2017, 01:28 AM   #321
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
No, it's fiat money that is at the root of our monetary problems. In fact, it's fiat money and the Fed which enables the government to "borrow" more than legitimately exists in credit markets, as you well know. And without fiat money and the Fed, it couldn't monetize pre-existing bonds in order to suppress interest rates. Absent this, government borrowing would be regulated and limited by available credit.
This is the classic "chicken and egg" question. As usual, the answer is "the reptile came first".

Yes, reptile means "banksters" and their sycophant economists.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:27 AM   #322
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
 
lupus_in_fabula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Tippit
I guarantee you that 99% of real estate buyers don't understand how the fractional reserve system works, and how that by entering into such an agreement they will essentially become slaves, paying off a multiple of their property's value over the course of the mortgage, to a bank which simply conjured the money out of thin air.
They don't need to. They only need to understand the contract they signed, where it is stipulated they must pay interest according to what's left on the loan. Hence they all know they are eventually going to have to pay back more than initial principal amount.

Originally Posted by Tippit
Equating what is patent fraud - fractional reserve banking - with freedom, is disingenuous. Banks, if they wish to engage in mortgage lending, should lend out their own paid-in capital under a 100% reserve system, or, at worst, act as loan brokers in such a system, instead of acting to perpetually inflate real estate and other prices. Either that or we enable everyone to engage in the special accounting rules enjoyed by banks under FRB.
Who should create the money which gets to be lent out?
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
lupus_in_fabula is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:33 AM   #323
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I guarantee you that 99% of real estate buyers don't understand how the fractional reserve system works, and how that by entering into such an agreement they will essentially become slaves, paying off a multiple of their property's value over the course of the mortgage, to a bank which simply conjured the money out of thin air.
Despite all the asserted knowledge you preach in here re your one and only topic of interest, you still feel the need to tell lies. Such "errors" might be forgiven from inexperienced nuts such as Saggy, but we all know that you know that this money isn't conjured out of thin air, and that the bank is on the 'hook' for every penny "creates". Whether lending is fractional or full, the bank assumes the risk of the loans it provides; your insinuation here is dishonest bollocks.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:56 AM   #324
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
Despite all the asserted knowledge you preach in here re your one and only topic of interest, you still feel the need to tell lies. Such "errors" might be forgiven from inexperienced nuts such as Saggy, but we all know that you know that this money isn't conjured out of thin air, and that the bank is on the 'hook' for every penny "creates". Whether lending is fractional or full, the bank assumes the risk of the loans it provides; your insinuation here is dishonest bollocks.
It is more of a question of sloppy language than dishonesty as such.

Banks create new deposits out of "thin air". Since these deposits can circulate without necessarily requiring a matching circulation of reserves (or that the reserves just move backwards and forward), it is like "real" money money is circulating.

The only time that the argument becomes dishonest is when you imply that fractional reserve banking creates new Federal reserve notes (or gold coins or whatever).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 03:51 AM   #325
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,923
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Your world appears to be a phantasm which could never exist, at least as a stable society.
I believe that it would be a perfectly possible and functionable thing. That doesn't mean that anyone will do it ever, though. There are many possible things that human societies will never do.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
If you don't like any job, create a political party or emigrate to another country, eh?
These are the available options now too, plus founding your own company. But founding a profitable company is not something that the average Joe has the courage and skill to do, so most people have exactly the options right now as you just listed above. So I don't see how this would change the ability of the society to exist, as there is hardly any difference.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
what would these other countries countries be like? And what would this country be like if people left other countries for these reasons, in order to come here? The ones who come here at present not only like, in general, to have jobs; they're even willing to do jobs that people here are less than ready to perform.
The "other" countries would be the 200+ countries as we know them today. Assuming that one of them would go my style of a way, to begin with.

People migrate between countries in search of a perceived better life. But this is not allowed to happen as much as there would be demand for it, richer countries make efforts to prevent willing comers from immigrating. So "my country" wouldn't need to be as attractive a place to migrate into as the richest countries are. It only needs to be more attractive than the worst countries, to get a steady influx of people who want to leave their own country, but fail to make it into (or get extradited from) their favourite country.

To be more attractive than the worst countries, I would need to offer a higher standard of living than the worst countries do. A tough contest against the GDP of Mali and Zimbabwe, but I believe I would have my chances. Simply not having a war or civil war in my country would immediately make my place more attractive than a dozen other countries around the planet. In fact, my opinion is that United Nations should run a proper state, and house the endless flow of refugees there, rather than in dismal camps in a desert.

Last edited by JJM 777; 12th October 2017 at 03:53 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 04:19 AM   #326
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It is more of a question of sloppy language than dishonesty as such.

Banks create new deposits out of "thin air". Since these deposits can circulate without necessarily requiring a matching circulation of reserves (or that the reserves just move backwards and forward), it is like "real" money money is circulating.

The only time that the argument becomes dishonest is when you imply that fractional reserve banking creates new Federal reserve notes (or gold coins or whatever).
I disagree. He states that the poor home owner has to pay back a "multitude" of the loan they borrowed, while implying that this loan has been created out of nothing, ie the bank providing it has assumed no risk from the transaction at all. We all (even Tippit) know this isn't true.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 04:45 AM   #327
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,923
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
doesn't give the government a license to either monetize everything, or perpetually raise taxes in order to nationalize everything.
I hope this "everything" refers to "all sorts of" rather than "all". Governments many nationalize all sorts of things, a bit here and there, but not all of "everything". Meditate for a moment on the reality of how political power functions: You are Hillary Clinton, how do you get into the White House? By charming Wall Street investors to fund your election campaign. Government is on the side of private investors, their mission is not to nationalize any more than is necessary or practical, and acceptable in the opinion of the elite of private investors.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I'm not contending that the state should not own anything, I'm contending that there should be a clear limit, since I personally live in a constitutional republic.
To me, such a limit would simply be a matter of opinion between Left-wing and Right-wing parties. Where I live, there is a constant public debate between Right-wing parties wishing to privatize state companies (and often doing that too), and Left-wing parties criticizing them for that. Any party that gets the majority of votes, has the democratic right to increase or reduce state participation in the economy, whatever seems correct in their opinion (and their voters).

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
The government couldn't care less about whether people spend
This is a bold claim. To put the E in JREF, or wait... to put the S in ISF, I am a bit skeptical about the truthfulness of that claim. What I read in the newspapers is that the government cares a lot about whether people spend or not.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
We agree that widespread ownership of stock shares is an egalitarian and just principle, but how do you propose to do this?
My proposal has been: a legally obligatory tax on the salary, a bit like I pay a legally obligatory tax for pension funds. Another tax would go to stock ownership funds. To keep private investors happy, we might set a cap that the state will not buy more than 49% of any company. Within that limit, this Workers Stock Ownership Fund would buy and own stock in whose stable profitability its analysts believe in.

Your proposal, on the other hand, is merely a monetary reform. It would not solve the problem that a worker with 4 kids to feed does not feel like spending 100 EUR of his monthly income into anything which does not seem absolutely and immediately necessary. Many, probably most, workers would be left as much outside of the ownership circle as they are today. Only a legally obligatory universal system would make a remarkable difference in the statistical balance of owners vs. non-owners.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
we have a system where trillions of dollars in money can be created and allocated to non-productive elites for their own private benefit, due to the way in which central banks operate. The fact that central banks also enable the state to spend arbitrary amounts of money for the "public benefit" is simply a concession made to politicians who allow the system to continue to exist.
Without going into the details, something a bit like that is happening, at least in USA. Big money funds politicians, and politicians serve the big money. This is not exactly news for any thinking person.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
the public can and will never catch up with the elites unless they abolish central banks.
Or nationalize them.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I recognize that capitalism is the best means for allocating scarce resources in an imperfect world.
The imperfect world includes sick or disabled persons, children, unemployed people etc. The hardcore Capitalist right-wing parties do their best to cut down the taxation, and therefore also any social benefits paid to these from tax money. Leftist parties try to raise taxes, so the state could afford to pay more acceptable social benefits to the afore-mentioned. And free health care and schools and universities, free meals at schools (all these are nationwide reality where I live, but not in USA). But other than that, the typical Leftist and Rightist parties would allow the economy to run as it is. So the main difference between political Left and Right is just the statistical share of income that they are willing to confiscate from workers and investors and be used for enhancing the lives of others than workers and investors. Also a balance between income taxation and profit taxation is part of the game. Left-wing parties are colloquially labelled as "Communist", but in fact both wings believe in the same type of economy, the difference is only in their perception of how much inequality between workers, investors, and the rest is "fair".

If you call yourself a "Capitalist", in the light of everything else what you say here, I cannot get a grasp where you would be aligned in the political spectrum. Would you raise the taxes to offer free health care, free schools and universities, free meals in schools, and higher unemployment benefits and pensions, as the Left-Left parties would? Or cut down the taxes and minimize all the afore-mentioned, as the Right-Right parties do? The answer to this question would really tell where you stand.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Do you see the problem that people who can either issue themselves unlimited money or unlimited credit cannot lose?
If we want to envy the bankers for their personal wealth, my solution would be nationalizing all banks, without essentially changing the way how they operate.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
paying off a multiple of their property's value over the course of the mortgage, to a bank which simply conjured the money out of thin air.
Years ago, I meditated on the fairness of interest rates. My model to analyze was that two young adults own a gold ring each. At 20 years of age, one of them lends her gold ring to the other. 25 years later, the loantaker gives the ring back, and also another ring as interest. 25 years later, they both die (or get hospitalized long term) at the age of 70 years. Their lives have been equal, what comes to gold rings, as both of them have experienced a 25-year period of possessing two gold rings, and 25 years of possessing no gold ring at all.

With this model I persuaded myself to believe that an interest rate is perfectly just between the loantaker and loangiver, if it doubles the value of the loan in 25 years. If the interest rate is lower than that (as can happen in Islamic banking, or in housing loans where I live), the loan benefits the taker more than the giver. If the interest is higher (as it usually is), it benefits the giver more than the taker.

On top of this, we need statistical corrections for inflation and risk of the loantaker never paying back the loan.

All in all, I arrived to the conclusion that 7% interest rate is OK, and 10% is highish but still tolerable, but anything above that starts to be remarkably unfair. As laws take care of fairness in so many ways, they might as well take care of fairness between a loangiver and loantaker, by setting a legal upper limit for interest rates. Such as 10%, for example.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
governments shouldn't issue debt. (...) They should finance their (constitutionally limited) operations using fair and honest direct taxation.
When politicians take debt, they artificially make the economic situation look better than it really is. The injust part of it is the fact that the next government, and the next generation of citizens, will have to live with the debt that the previous politicians and previous generation of citizens took. I don't say that governments should take no loans at all. Costly infrastructure projects can well be funded with loans. But the rule of thumb should be that each generation of citizens pay back the debts that their generation took. One generation of humans living in luxury, and leaving the bill for the next generation to pay, is not fair.

Last edited by JJM 777; 12th October 2017 at 04:47 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:15 AM   #328
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is the classic "chicken and egg" question. As usual, the answer is "the reptile came first".

Yes, reptile means "banksters" and their sycophant economists.
I don't see how it's chicken and egg at all. Without fiat money and with a supply of relatively scarce money, there would be an upper limit on how much the bond market is willing to lend the Federal Government, period. I still wouldn't support government borrowing, but the bond market would be relatively sane, as opposed to what it is now.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:19 AM   #329
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
They don't need to. They only need to understand the contract they signed, where it is stipulated they must pay interest according to what's left on the loan. Hence they all know they are eventually going to have to pay back more than initial principal amount.
The public's ignorance of mortgages-for-nothing, and the total cost of mortgages doesn't excuse fraud. If the banks were lending their own paid-in capital as opposed to creating credit out of thin-air, the cost of the death-pledge would still be high, but there would be no fraud. In addition, the lack of inflation in the real estate market would enable more people to afford the purchase of real estate without mortgaging their lives.

Quote:

Who should create the money which gets to be lent out?
No one at all, least of all an unaccountable central bank which benefits private interests.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:31 AM   #330
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
I disagree. He states that the poor home owner has to pay back a "multitude" of the loan they borrowed, while implying that this loan has been created out of nothing, ie the bank providing it has assumed no risk from the transaction at all. We all (even Tippit) know this isn't true.
Add words that weren't in Tippit's post like "no risk at all" and you can accuse him of all sorts of wooery.

I'm sure that Tippit is aware that each new deposit the commercial bank creates increases the claims its customers have on its reserves.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I don't see how it's chicken and egg at all. Without fiat money and with a supply of relatively scarce money, there would be an upper limit on how much the bond market is willing to lend the Federal Government, period. I still wouldn't support government borrowing, but the bond market would be relatively sane, as opposed to what it is now.
You didn't read the fine print. Who do you think convinced the politicians in the first place that it would be a good idea to switch to a totally fiat system and why wouldn't they when they can run permanent deficit budgets?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 12th October 2017 at 09:34 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:31 AM   #331
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
 
lupus_in_fabula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Tippit
No one at all, least of all an unaccountable central bank which benefits private interests.
You want to money lending to go on but nobody should create the money in the first place. You make no sense.
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
lupus_in_fabula is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:32 AM   #332
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
Despite all the asserted knowledge you preach in here re your one and only topic of interest, you still feel the need to tell lies. Such "errors" might be forgiven from inexperienced nuts such as Saggy, but we all know that you know that this money isn't conjured out of thin air, and that the bank is on the 'hook' for every penny "creates". Whether lending is fractional or full, the bank assumes the risk of the loans it provides; your insinuation here is dishonest bollocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracti...eserve_banking
"Because banks hold reserves in amounts that are less than the amounts of their deposit liabilities, and because the deposit liabilities are considered money in their own right, fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank.

I never claimed that banks don't assume the risk for their loans, except, in reality ultimately they don't because banks can simply borrow more from other banks or central banks when their loans go sour, (creating even more money) effectively forcing the public to socialize their losses.

You are dismissed.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 12th October 2017 at 09:33 AM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:36 AM   #333
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
I disagree. He states that the poor home owner has to pay back a "multitude" of the loan they borrowed, while implying that this loan has been created out of nothing, ie the bank providing it has assumed no risk from the transaction at all. We all (even Tippit) know this isn't true.
The bank creates the principal ex nihilo in exchange for a promissory note which is secured by a valuable, and scarce home asset.

You were dismissed. Why are you still here?
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:41 AM   #334
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
You want to money lending to go on but nobody should create the money in the first place. You make no sense.
If you think hard enough, you can conceive of lending in a post-fractional reserve banking world.

Here is a hint, it involves the abolition of demand deposits.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:00 AM   #335
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
 
lupus_in_fabula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If you think hard enough, you can conceive of lending in a post-fractional reserve banking world.

Here is a hint, it involves the abolition of demand deposits.
The term "fractional" in what is currently called fractional reserve banking is already somewhat of a misnomer.

Don't hold us in suspension (just tell us your masterplan): What would you want money to be, and how would it come to exist?
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
lupus_in_fabula is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:05 AM   #336
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
You want to money lending to go on but nobody should create the money in the first place. You make no sense.
Gold and silver served as money for thousands of years, and still can. Don't act like you didn't know.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:32 AM   #337
lupus_in_fabula
Graduate Poster
 
lupus_in_fabula's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Gold and silver served as money for thousands of years, and still can. Don't act like you didn't know.
So has dog teeth, beetle leg strings, salt, cowry shells, etc., etc. But even during such commodity monies, credit was still issued and elementary… so I really don't see the point you're making here.

Do we really want the growth of the economy to be dependent on the productivity of gold miners?
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
lupus_in_fabula is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:41 AM   #338
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
But even during such commodity monies, credit was still issued and elementary… so I really don't see the point you're making here.
Tippit's dream is that banks would neither be able to create new deposits nor lend money that has been deposited. They would only provide checkable deposit accounts (for a fee of course). Financial institutions would only be able to lend money from their own capital (eg as provided by shareholders).

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
Do we really want the growth of the economy to be dependent on the productivity of gold miners?
I don't know about "we" but that would be Tippit's desire.

In practice, with the rise of crypto-currencies and distributed ledgers, I doubt that it would be possible to implement such a policy anymore (if it ever was). "You don't have any gold? I'll take bitcoin".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:11 PM   #339
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post

You didn't read the fine print. Who do you think convinced the politicians in the first place that it would be a good idea to switch to a totally fiat system and why wouldn't they when they can run permanent deficit budgets?
So you admit that fiat money enables the funding of perpetual budget deficits (as even Alan Greenspan admitted in Gold and Economic Freedom), yet I'm supposed to believe that debt issuance is the real issue.

Hmm, lets see. A finite money supply with finite debt issuance and limited government spending, or an infinite money supply with infinite debt issuance and unlimited government spending.

Do you see the problem with the scenario that you're selling?
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:30 PM   #340
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
So you admit that fiat money enables the funding of perpetual budget deficits (as even Alan Greenspan admitted in Gold and Economic Freedom), yet I'm supposed to believe that debt issuance is the real issue.

Hmm, lets see. A finite money supply with finite debt issuance and limited government spending, or an infinite money supply with infinite debt issuance and unlimited government spending.

Do you see the problem with the scenario that you're selling?
I have never denied that fiat currency enables budget deficits. I just point out that if it were not for these never ending deficits, there would be no government securities for the central bank to monetize and the subsequent problems that this causes with asset price inflation.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:32 PM   #341
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula View Post
So has dog teeth, beetle leg strings, salt, cowry shells, etc., etc. But even during such commodity monies, credit was still issued and elementary… so I really don't see the point you're making here.
The point I'm making, is that if money isn't scarce, then money creators will defraud and steal from the rest of society. And the difference between gold and silver, and all of those things you just mentioned, is scarcity, not to mention a number of other properties that made it more desirable as money.

Quote:

Do we really want the growth of the economy to be dependent on the productivity of gold miners?
Yes, in light of the alternative, which is the greatest fraud perpetuated in human history by central banks across the world, all controlled by the same few elites.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:33 PM   #342
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Tippit's dream is that banks would neither be able to create new deposits nor lend money that has been deposited. They would only provide checkable deposit accounts (for a fee of course). Financial institutions would only be able to lend money from their own capital (eg as provided by shareholders).
Not true. I support term deposits, and loan-brokering. What I oppose, simply, is the fraud of money creation, in all of its forms.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:43 PM   #343
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I have never denied that fiat currency enables budget deficits. I just point out that if it were not for these never ending deficits, there would be no government securities for the central bank to monetize and the subsequent problems that this causes with asset price inflation.
You're beginning to lose credibility. The never ending deficits are a function of unlimited money, and nothing else. There is no "chicken-or-egg" scenario. There is only cause and effect. Government deficits could be financed with fiat money and zero debt, by simply monetizing government expenses directly, in which case there would literally never be any deficits. Debt is simply a way for private creditors to extract rent from public taxpayers other than by creating money for their private benefit.

A "deficit" is a flow variable for a given period which only means a shortfall of tax revenue versus government spending for that period. Since the government has two other means of funding its perpetual spending spree, namely, fiat money creation, borrowing, or both, the term doesn't really describe anything useful. What should be focused on, are a) how much are elites benefiting from debasing the public's money supply, and b) how much spending is the government doing overall, and how is that benefiting the public, in that order. Nothing else really matters.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 12th October 2017 at 01:06 PM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:17 PM   #344
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,334
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
You don't understand how central banks work. The CBs create money ex nihilo and either lend it, or purchase assets in the open market with it. There is no limit to this process, other than the central banks themselves. That's why the US Federal Reserve has allegedly $4.5 trillion on its balance sheet, and at least $9 trillion off-balance sheet.
Investment banks have different rules than lending banks.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Regardless of the scarcity of assets, the acquisition of them with money created ex nihilo represents a form of theft by those who did not produce anything in exchange for the money to purchase the assets. And yes, while wealth is not a zero-sum game, wealth-share is. The fact that productive human beings will always create more, and build more, doesn't excuse the fraud.
The services provided by banks are not at all fraudulent. If you think they are and believe you would be more productive without them, give it a try and see how it works.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If the goal is for workers to eventually become owners, then that goal is literally impossible without monetary reform.
Not at all. They just need to invest some of their productivity into ownership.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:22 PM   #345
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,334
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The money borrowed by the government never gets repaid. They just borrow more of it.
Technically it all gets repaid. Everytime a treasury bond is cashed, it's a debt repaid. Granted our government borrows more than it repays, but that's a choice our government makes and not a function of the system.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Assets is no problem for the Fed. The market is awash with government securities galore. All the Fed has to do to get some of those securities is press a button and PRESTO! we have more base money.
The Federal Reserve is limited in the ways it can make money. It can charge interest on the loans it grants to member banks, and it can charge transaction fees. When it makes too much money, the overage is paid to the US treasury.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:08 PM   #346
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I never claimed that banks don't assume the risk for their loans, except, in reality ultimately they don't
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:16 PM   #347
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Add words that weren't in Tippit's post like "no risk at all" and you can accuse him of all sorts of wooery.
My inference was perfectly reasonable and fairly consistent with his schtick we've been rolling our eyes at for years. Given his response I am satisfied with my previous statement, that Tippit believes that banks ultimately create money out of nothing and at no risk to themselves. Hence his regular misuse of "fraud" in his screed.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:05 PM   #348
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Not true. I support term deposits, and loan-brokering. What I oppose, simply, is the fraud of money creation, in all of its forms.
Whenever a bank lends out money that has been deposited you get "deposit expansion" (because the lent money gets circulated around and eventually re-deposited). Term deposit expansion is a helluva lot better than checkable deposit expansion but it still expands the M2 money supply.

I don't know what you mean by "loan brokering" but if you mean matching individual lenders to individual borrowers then 30 year mortgages would be difficult to arrange unless the lender is a financial institution. If you mean selling shares in a loan then this is a form of "near money".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:11 PM   #349
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Technically it all gets repaid. Everytime a treasury bond is cashed, it's a debt repaid. Granted our government borrows more than it repays, but that's a choice our government makes and not a function of the system.
Selling a new security to buy back an old security is not even "technically" repaying a loan. The debt remains. Yes, it is a choice the government makes.

Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The Federal Reserve is limited in the ways it can make money. It can charge interest on the loans it grants to member banks, and it can charge transaction fees. When it makes too much money, the overage is paid to the US treasury.
I was referring to creating new base money - not collecting interest on debts/securities (which gets returned to the Treasury anyhow). You were trying to say that there is a hard limit to how much money the Fed can lend out to its cronies but there isn't.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:19 PM   #350
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
The never ending deficits are a function of unlimited money, and nothing else. There is no "chicken-or-egg" scenario.
I'm inclined to agree that politicians can't help themselves and must borrow as much money as they can get away with. By the time the debt becomes a problem it will be somebody else's problem.

Nevertheless, it is the government's choice to rack up so much debt aided and abetted by economic "advisers" who keep saying that it doesn't matter.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 01:13 AM   #351
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Investment banks have different rules than lending banks.
You're clueless. We're talking about central banks.

As far as the law that separated investment banks from commercial banks, it was called the "Glass-Steagall Act", and it was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999.

Quote:

The services provided by banks are not at all fraudulent. If you think they are and believe you would be more productive without them, give it a try and see how it works.
This is not an argument.

Quote:

Not at all. They just need to invest some of their productivity into ownership.
Sorry, workers can't earn money and buy equity faster than central bankers can conjure it.

Case in point: Facebook.

Swiss central bank steps up stock buying spree

ZURICH, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland’s central bank now owns more publicly-traded shares in Facebook than Mark Zuckerberg, part of a mushrooming stock portfolio that is likely to grow yet further."

...

"Still, not everyone is happy about the bank’s strategy of money printing and buying up stocks including constituents of the U.S. S&P 500 index.

“The SNB creates Swiss francs out of thin Alpine air,” said James Grant, publisher of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, a U.S. financial markets journal.

“Then they go and call their broker and go on a tour of the U.S. stock exchange,” he told Finanz und Wirtschaft newspaper. “They get involved in important companies from the S&P which create real profits, and they do that with money which has been created out of nothing.” ($1 = 0.9793 Swiss francs)
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 13th October 2017 at 01:32 AM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 01:23 AM   #352
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Whenever a bank lends out money that has been deposited you get "deposit expansion" (because the lent money gets circulated around and eventually re-deposited). Term deposit expansion is a helluva lot better than checkable deposit expansion but it still expands the M2 money supply.
I meant a term deposit in a 100% reserve system, i.e., you make a term deposit, and the bank is authorized to loan that money but only for less than or equal to the duration of the term, and of course, the money is no longer available for withdrawal until the term expires. I thought this was obvious.

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by "loan brokering" but if you mean matching individual lenders to individual borrowers then 30 year mortgages would be difficult to arrange unless the lender is a financial institution. If you mean selling shares in a loan then this is a form of "near money".
I meant exactly what I said, I would relegate bankers to the tedious job of matching borrowers with lenders in a 100% reserve system, and perhaps getting paid a commission.

As far as the viability of 30 year mortgages, if you can't find me someone with either actual savings who is willing to lend, or paid-in capital at a financial institution, then no 30 year mortgages should be written. Lest you think that would cause an epidemic of homelessness, consider the scope of both fiat money and FRB in terms of housing price inflation, and then consider that it would be gone. Housing would become immediately affordable for people who actually work for a living, if not for cash, then for mortgages of much lesser duration.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 13th October 2017 at 01:36 AM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:36 AM   #353
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I meant a term deposit in a 100% reserve system, i.e., you make a term deposit, and the bank is authorized to loan that money but only for less than or equal to the duration of the term, and of course, the money is no longer available for withdrawal until the term expires. I thought this was obvious.
No, that was one of the big mysteries. Thanks for finally telling us how it would work.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I meant exactly what I said, I would relegate bankers to the tedious job of matching borrowers with lenders in a 100% reserve system, and perhaps getting paid a commission.

As far as the viability of 30 year mortgages, if you can't find me someone with either actual savings who is willing to lend, or paid-in capital at a financial institution, then no 30 year mortgages should be written. Lest you think that would cause an epidemic of homelessness, consider the scope of both fiat money and FRB in terms of housing price inflation, and then consider that it would be gone. Housing would become immediately affordable for people who actually work for a living, if not for cash, then for mortgages of much lesser duration.
It's more likely that we would go back to the days when individuals had to pay exorbitant rents to wealthy land owners because they neither had the cash up front nor were able to get a mortgage to buy their own home.

In the days when banks weren't given licence to treat the world like a giant casino, mortgages were difficult (but not impossible) to get. We had "building societies" that operated in a similar fashion to banks but they didn't offer checkable deposit accounts (only passbook savings accounts) and they only made housing loans. The mortgages were more expensive than bank mortgages but this helped keep the lid on housing prices.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 13th October 2017 at 02:37 AM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 04:21 AM   #354
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It's more likely that we would go back to the days when individuals had to pay exorbitant rents to wealthy land owners because they neither had the cash up front nor were able to get a mortgage to buy their own home.
As opposed to now, where Blackstone group, a wall street hedge fund which received billions from the Fed to buy up the real estate market, is now the biggest landlord in the United States? As opposed to now, where rents in many places in the US approach 50% of income, such as in Flint, Michigan, and housing has hardly ever been more unaffordable?

I think you drastically underestimate the effect that trillions in Fed funny money over the past few decades has goosed up the real estate market for the benefit of "wealthy land owners". I'd take my chances with these evil land owners if I knew that some of them didn't have access to unlimited money with which to buy their massive portfolio of rental properties.

Quote:

In the days when banks weren't given licence to treat the world like a giant casino, mortgages were difficult (but not impossible) to get. We had "building societies" that operated in a similar fashion to banks but they didn't offer checkable deposit accounts (only passbook savings accounts) and they only made housing loans. The mortgages were more expensive than bank mortgages but this helped keep the lid on housing prices.
I don't pretend that monetary reform will automatically solve all problems. After all, this system has essentially been in place since the Bank of England was created in 1694. Imagine how much wealth has been looted since then, and how many rental properties the rent seekers own?

But the fact of the matter is that anyone taking out a 30 year mortgage at current rates is going to pay over 2x the value of the home over the duration. This is a sucker's deal.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 05:58 AM   #355
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
But the fact of the matter is that anyone taking out a 30 year mortgage at current rates is going to pay over 2x the value of the home over the duration. This is a sucker's deal.
And paying the same amount in rent your entire life and having nothing to show for it at the end is not?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 09:06 AM   #356
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,334
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
This is not an argument.
Sure it is. It refutes your claim that people are denied "wealth share" by the services of banks, but the reality is banking services make people more productive and increases the creation of wealth for everyone. If you disagree, try to maintain your current level of productivity and lifestyle without the services of banks.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Sorry, workers can't earn money and buy equity faster than central bankers can conjure it.
You moved the goalposts from "the goal is for workers to eventually become owners" to "buying equity faster than banks". Keep the goalposts in place, please.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 01:15 PM   #357
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,334
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
As opposed to now, where rents in many places in the US approach 50% of income, such as in Flint, Michigan, and housing has hardly ever been more unaffordable?
Check out this lovely home in Flint Michigan on sale today for $50,000.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2...73932997_zpid/

A 30 year mortgage today at 4% (higher than market rate) and this home could be yours for a monthly payment of less than $250.00.

Granted it's at the low end of the market, but it's not a hovel. I'd be fine living there, except my wife doesn't like stairs.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
But the fact of the matter is that anyone taking out a 30 year mortgage at current rates is going to pay over 2x the value of the home over the duration. This is a sucker's deal.
First, that was true when interest rates were much higher, around 7.5%. At today's interest rates you would end up paying about 72% above the financed portion of your purchase.

But either way, it's still a great deal. You get ownership NOW for something you won't finish paying for for 30 years. Then in the meantime, if you live in the US, you also get to claim a tax deduction for your interest payments.

Also, the value of money changes over time. If you were making the last payment today on your 30 year mortgage for the home you bought in 1987, chances are the value of your home would have increased many times over in the time you owned it, and you would be paying on it with dollars with far less buying power.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 02:56 PM   #358
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Sure it is. It refutes your claim that people are denied "wealth share" by the services of banks, but the reality is banking services make people more productive and increases the creation of wealth for everyone. If you disagree, try to maintain your current level of productivity and lifestyle without the services of banks.
Banks might make loans but that doesn't mean that they increase "the creation of wealth for everyone".

As a matter of fact, the money that banks create is generally pumped into the property market (rather than businesses) which pushes the price of housing beyond the reach of many (and also increases the rents as well) and this leaves many worse off.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 03:27 PM   #359
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,334
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Banks might make loans but that doesn't mean that they increase "the creation of wealth for everyone".
Almost everything that's built and produced involves financing in some way. From the car you drive, the roads you drive on, the building you work in, all of it is produced by borrowed money in one form or another.
__________________
Palestinian Refugees
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 09:24 PM   #360
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,470
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Almost everything that's built and produced involves financing in some way. From the car you drive, the roads you drive on, the building you work in, all of it is produced by borrowed money in one form or another.
That answer neither addresses the post that you quoted nor means that banks should be allowed to run amok. Banks are not the only institutions that offer credit (see post #353 above).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 13th October 2017 at 09:26 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.