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.
Reply
Old 24th November 2017, 03:03 PM   #321
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
So what is the estimated change in the total availability and price of loans, compared to present situation?
Can you explain what mechanism would cause there to be a change at all?
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan 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 5th December 2017, 04:13 AM   #322
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Can you explain what mechanism would cause there to be a change at all?
It has been speculated that in fractional reserve, more loans are available, for a cheaper price. The two mechanisms that my blind eyes see in that would be:

- Smaller availability of loans would mean that their demand exceeds supply, which gives loangivers the opportunity to raise the prices until "demand equals supply" -- what comes to the queue in front of their offices, that is.

- If we assume the required reserve as a "cost", in fractional reserve banks can give out 10 times more loans for the same "cost". That would mean that the production cost of loans is higher in full reserve banking, which should naturally drive the prices up.
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 5th December 2017, 04:25 AM   #323
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I have no problems with capital gains. Apparently you do, which again, is indicative of totalitarianism.
In a broad sense, totalitarianism is the art of forcing people to do what they would not do voluntarily. All existing countries are totalitarian, in a broad sense. My favourite is multi-dimensional democracy, where autonomous territory and national assets of the country (or indeed the world) are distributed to political parties according to their statistical share of support among voters. Each political party would have autonomous rule over its own territory and supporters. Within this setting, I would probably vote a party that "has problems with capital gains". Yet the outcome would be less totalitarian than anything what you suggest that should be done about this money problem.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
All we have to do is abolish the frauds of fiat money and fractional reserve banking, and that will reduce banks to their rightful status as storage providers.
What you suggest is indescribably difficult to achieve, given the ability of the current benefitors to defend their position. Yet it would not achieve even a fraction of the extent of economic equality among humans that I dream of.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
In a sound monetary system where investors are rewarded for investing in stable, profitable businesses, and who assume all of the risks, I have no problems with capital gains.
Which planet are these investors from? What I see is elite investors avoiding taxes with overseas company structures, and merrily accepting state subsidies, even bailouts. "Responsibility" is not the best word to describe the elite investor community.
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 5th December 2017, 09:35 AM   #324
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
It has been speculated that in fractional reserve, more loans are available, for a cheaper price.
And it has been demonstrated time and time again that this is not the case.

For somebody who started this thread to be "educated" you are remarkably resistant to all efforts to enlighten you.
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I personally don't understand it, so now you have a chance to educate me. Let your inner teacher loose. Force me to understand it.
__________________
"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 online now   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 5th December 2017, 11:11 AM   #325
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
It has been speculated that in fractional reserve, more loans are available, for a cheaper price. The two mechanisms that my blind eyes see in that would be:
It is absolutely true that under a fractional reserve system that more loans would be available and more cheaply. But this doesn't come without a price. Just like you can't increase the yield of milk from a cow by changing the definition of a gallon, increasing the money supply for the purpose of advancing mortgages only rewards existing property owners at the expense of savers, by driving up the costs of real estate. This means that savers must necessarily buy less home with their hard earned dollars, and that borrowers must borrow more and more money for longer periods of time to account for the higher property prices. There is no free lunch with free/cheap money, only the regressive redistribution of wealth.

Quote:

- Smaller availability of loans would mean that their demand exceeds supply, which gives loangivers the opportunity to raise the prices until "demand equals supply" -- what comes to the queue in front of their offices, that is.

- If we assume the required reserve as a "cost", in fractional reserve banks can give out 10 times more loans for the same "cost". That would mean that the production cost of loans is higher in full reserve banking, which should naturally drive the prices up.
Higher prices for loans is not a bad thing, given a sound, stable monetary system, and a free market. It means that savers are rewarded for making sound, safe loans to credit worthy borrowers, and it means that property prices aren't inflated by an endless sea of bank credit.
__________________
"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 5th December 2017, 11:18 AM   #326
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
In a broad sense, totalitarianism is the art of forcing people to do what they would not do voluntarily. All existing countries are totalitarian, in a broad sense. My favourite is multi-dimensional democracy, where autonomous territory and national assets of the country (or indeed the world) are distributed to political parties according to their statistical share of support among voters. Each political party would have autonomous rule over its own territory and supporters. Within this setting, I would probably vote a party that "has problems with capital gains". Yet the outcome would be less totalitarian than anything what you suggest that should be done about this money problem.
You are utterly, and absolutely wrong. I'm advocating real reform, and you're advocating totalitarianism. And no, all existing countries are not totalitarian. The absence of anarchy is not totalitarianism. Words have meaning, learn them.

Quote:

What you suggest is indescribably difficult to achieve, given the ability of the current benefitors to defend their position. Yet it would not achieve even a fraction of the extent of economic equality among humans that I dream of.
It's difficult to achieve, because the simple minded cannot be convinced of what the root cause of economic injustice is - the corrupt money system. Human beings are neither equal, nor do they deserve "economic equality". They deserve equality under the law, and a monetary system that is not fundamentally corrupt.

Quote:

Which planet are these investors from? What I see is elite investors avoiding taxes with overseas company structures, and merrily accepting state subsidies, even bailouts. "Responsibility" is not the best word to describe the elite investor community.
I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Capital gains, and speculation are not inherently evil or problematic. They're a natural consequence of a free market system. The problem is the corrupt monetary system that rewards asset owners with inordinate and unfair gains at the direct expense of workers and savers by the debasement of currency.

The problem with these investors aren't that they have enjoyed outrageous and unfair capital gains (they certainly have). The problem is that the outrageous returns are a function of a corrupt money system, and wouldn't exist otherwise. Please try to grasp this.
__________________
"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 6th December 2017, 02:44 AM   #327
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,951
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Smart ones say "raise the FICA cap and the problem is solved."
Technically, there are some perfectly intelligent people who don't say that. They just seem to prefer the pre-SS method of auctioning off the elderly to the lowest bidder, re-instituting workhouses, or something along those lines, I suppose.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   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 6th December 2017, 03:27 AM   #328
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
It has been speculated that in fractional reserve, more loans are available, for a cheaper price. The two mechanisms that my blind eyes see in that would be:

- Smaller availability of loans would mean that their demand exceeds supply, which gives loangivers the opportunity to raise the prices until "demand equals supply" -- what comes to the queue in front of their offices, that is.
Why would the availability of loans be smaller?

Quote:
- If we assume the required reserve as a "cost", in fractional reserve banks can give out 10 times more loans for the same "cost". That would mean that the production cost of loans is higher in full reserve banking, which should naturally drive the prices up.
Yes, that is a cost. This is how the central bank can use interest rates to influence the money supple: By controlling the refinancing cost.
A 100% reserve requirement would probably be part of a wider overhaul of the system. But if not, one would expect the CB to adjust the interest rates to keep the cost of loans at the desired level.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan 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 6th December 2017, 04:03 AM   #329
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,951
Quote:
Why would the availability of loans be smaller?
Because they wouldn't be able to loan out more than they already have. They wouldn't be allowed to only have a fraction of what they're loaning out.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is online now   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 6th December 2017, 04:10 AM   #330
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Because they wouldn't be able to loan out more than they already have. They wouldn't be allowed to only have a fraction of what they're loaning out.
Since you are new to this thread, I will repeat myself.
  1. They would still be able to lend out money in savings accounts (85% of all deposits). So there would only be a 15% drop in loans if no other action was taken.
  2. The Fed can still lend the banks as much money as is needed to make new loans. (This gives the Fed a greater say in what the new loans would be for).
In short, bugger all difference in total loan availability but less scope to pump up the price of properties. You will also find other advantages if you go back through this thread.
__________________
"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 online now   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 7th December 2017, 04:23 AM   #331
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
> It has been speculated that in fractional reserve, more loans are available, for a cheaper price.

And it has been demonstrated time and time again that this is not the case.
VERSUS:
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
It is absolutely true that under a fractional reserve system that more loans would be available and more cheaply.
A layman wouldn't expect such a stark contrast between statements from two persons who both present themselves as experts on the issue.

I am inclined to believe that Tippit is closer to the truth in that particular matter.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
There is no free lunch with free/cheap money, only the regressive redistribution of wealth.
To me it looks like cheaper money exists, at least in theory. Cheaper production costs of loans under fractional reserve mean that loans are cheaper, at least theoretically. How this economic advantage gets distributed, is another story.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
It's difficult to achieve, because the simple minded cannot be convinced of what the root cause of economic injustice
You place a lot of faith in the ability of the general public to change a world dominated by the deep state (tm) of the rich and powerful. I mean, you say that the problem is that people don't understand. That is a problem, but even if people did understand, there would still be significant problems in changing a rigged system, dominated by the riggers. That is why described you as a revolutionary long ago.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
The problem with these investors aren't that they have enjoyed outrageous and unfair capital gains (they certainly have). The problem is that the outrageous returns are a function of a corrupt money system, and wouldn't exist otherwise. Please try to grasp this.
Just for correctness, I was referring to tax evasion of companies like Apple, Nike etc. whose capital gains have a relatively traditional and accepted source: producing something in factories and then selling it. But despite their normalness as a business sector, they are h*ll-bent for tax evasion.
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 7th December 2017, 04:24 AM   #332
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Why would the availability of loans be smaller?
Assuming that ability to create valid base money remains the same, fractional reserve allows giving out 10 times more loans for the same base money.
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 7th December 2017, 04:26 AM   #333
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
They would still be able to lend out money in savings accounts (85% of all deposits). So there would only be a 15% drop in loans if no other action was taken.
Whatever you are referring to here, multiplied fractionally by 10 is 10 times more than kept full-reservedly at its original full value.
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 7th December 2017, 04:38 AM   #334
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
A layman wouldn't expect such a stark contrast between statements from two persons who both present themselves as experts on the issue.

I am inclined to believe that Tippit is closer to the truth in that particular matter.
Tippit believes that it should not be possible to create any credit or base money whatsoever. That is why interest rates would be higher in his model. He would outlaw lending money from either transaction accounts or savings accounts or creating new deposits or borrowing newly created money from the Fed.

Is that what you believe is "closer to the truth"?

Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Whatever you are referring to here, multiplied fractionally by 10 is 10 times more than kept full-reservedly at its original full value.
That didn't address what you posted.

Hint: money in savings accounts that is lent out eventually gets re-deposited into another savings account thus increasing the total money in savings accounts even though the base money hasn't changed. This is the traditional description of the "money multiplier".
__________________
"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 online now   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 7th December 2017, 04:41 PM   #335
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Assuming that ability to create valid base money remains the same, fractional reserve allows giving out 10 times more loans for the same base money.
What is the limiting factor for the creation of base money?
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan 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 7th December 2017, 11:07 PM   #336
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
You place a lot of faith in the ability of the general public to change a world dominated by the deep state (tm) of the rich and powerful. I mean, you say that the problem is that people don't understand. That is a problem, but even if people did understand, there would still be significant problems in changing a rigged system, dominated by the riggers. That is why described you as a revolutionary long ago.
You're right. Lets ignore the root cause of the problem and the real solutions. Then we can all become totalitarian communists. It's not like western bankers didn't promote that ideology, and the Bolshevik revolution (see Jacob Schiff).

Quote:

Just for correctness, I was referring to tax evasion of companies like Apple, Nike etc. whose capital gains have a relatively traditional and accepted source: producing something in factories and then selling it. But despite their normalness as a business sector, they are h*ll-bent for tax evasion.
I don't have any love for big corporations who have unlimited credit with banks. But they are just a symptom of the problem.
__________________
"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 8th December 2017, 12:38 AM   #337
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
What is the limiting factor for the creation of base money?
Now I see, easy debating tactics. Ask the most difficult questions from the dumbest panelist.

Apparently the limiting factor is the practical need for money to have the generally expected and stable exchange value, so that you actually can buy with it what it is supposed to be worth. People need to believe in the value of money, and that faith comes from practical real-life experience, what you get for your money, domestically and internationally.
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 8th December 2017, 12:41 AM   #338
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I don't have any love for big corporations who have unlimited credit with banks.
You use the word "unlimited" rather loosely, to go unadmonished in a scientific and skeptical place such as this forum, where sincerity, precision and truthfulness of every claim is valued.
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 8th December 2017, 12:44 AM   #339
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,016
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Is that what you believe is "closer to the truth"?
Umm, ehh.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Hint: money in savings accounts that is lent out eventually gets re-deposited into another savings account thus increasing the total money in savings accounts even though the base money hasn't changed.
So you oppose "fractional reserve banking", but allow a pyramid fraud scheme chain-reaction of money being lent to one savings account, which is then lent to another savings account. Repeat this n times, and then pray to God that nobody in the chain goes bankrupt, because that would cause everyone else in the pyramid scheme to lose their money too.
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 8th December 2017, 01:08 AM   #340
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Now I see, easy debating tactics. Ask the most difficult questions from the dumbest panelist.
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Umm, ehh.
If you are going to make authoritative sounding statements then it isn't a good look to say afterwards, "don't ask me, I'm rather stupid".

Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
So you oppose "fractional reserve banking", but allow a pyramid fraud scheme chain-reaction of money being lent to one savings account, which is then lent to another savings account. Repeat this n times, and then pray to God that nobody in the chain goes bankrupt, because that would cause everyone else in the pyramid scheme to lose their money too.
Did you think that fractional reserve banking was something different?

I don't know how many millions of times I have pointed out that only transaction accounts (not savings accounts) would be quarantined from fractional reserve banking.
__________________
"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 online now   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 8th December 2017, 07:19 AM   #341
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
You use the word "unlimited" rather loosely, to go unadmonished in a scientific and skeptical place such as this forum, where sincerity, precision and truthfulness of every claim is valued.
Except, the supply of fiat money is literally unlimited.
__________________
"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 8th December 2017, 07:25 AM   #342
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Now I see, easy debating tactics. Ask the most difficult questions from the dumbest panelist.

Apparently the limiting factor is the practical need for money to have the generally expected and stable exchange value, so that you actually can buy with it what it is supposed to be worth. People need to believe in the value of money, and that faith comes from practical real-life experience, what you get for your money, domestically and internationally.
If the reserve requirements were increased and the base money supply also to assure that the reserve requirements can be met without a hitch, then that would not make a difference to these goals. Correct?

So the Central Bank could just create more base money, lend it out at a correspondingly lower interest rate, and there would be no change to price/availability of credit.
__________________
I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
GnaGnaMan 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 8th December 2017, 07:38 AM   #343
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Except, the supply of fiat money is literally unlimited.
Balanced against perceived value of said currency. This is why metrics like purchasing power parity are so useful.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle 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 8th December 2017, 07:55 AM   #344
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Balanced against perceived value of said currency. This is why metrics like purchasing power parity are so useful.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
I wouldn't use the word "balanced" to describe central bank theft. First of all, the "value" of currency is typically measured by a basket of other fiat currencies, for which their supplies are also unlimited. Or, they're measured by an "inflation" index that only considers consumer prices, which are themselves doctored and subject to hedonic regression.

Lastly, since productivity gains would ordinarily accrue to savers, but are instead stolen by money issuers, even "stable" consumer prices means an extraordinary amount of theft and/or wealth redistribution are taking place.

To the extent that PPP accounts for exchange rates, it accounts for relative differences in purchasing power, but it doesn't measure the overall level of currency debasement. The best way to do that is to simply look at money supply figures.
__________________
"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 8th December 2017, 08:13 AM   #345
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I wouldn't use the word "balanced" to describe central bank theft.
NOBODY DID ANY SUCH *********** THING!

Jesus ****balls Christ.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle 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 8th December 2017, 11:20 AM   #346
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
NOBODY DID ANY SUCH *********** THING!

Jesus ****balls Christ.
Lol. It's implied. Who do you think is in charge of the supply of money? Who were you referring to who is doing the balancing?
__________________
"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 8th December 2017, 11:55 AM   #347
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Lol. It's implied. Who do you think is in charge of the supply of money? Who were you referring to who is doing the balancing?
Society as a whole decides what dollars are worth by exchanging them for things when they feel the value exchanged is fair.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle 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 8th December 2017, 10:03 PM   #348
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Except, the supply of fiat money is literally potentially unlimited.
ftfy.

I'm sure that you would agree that the Fed only prints enough money to satisfy their rich mates. Any poor bugger who is short of the funds for a meal will be waiting a long time if they are hoping for the Fed to print them the price of their meal.
__________________
"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 online now   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 9th December 2017, 02:07 AM   #349
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
ftfy.

I'm sure that you would agree that the Fed only prints enough money to satisfy their rich mates. Any poor bugger who is short of the funds for a meal will be waiting a long time if they are hoping for the Fed to print them the price of their meal.
If you had a printing press, a debit card with no limit, or access to unlimited credit, how much would you be "satisfied" with? Personally, I would begin to take over the world.

I would start with buying up the media and making sure no discussion of monetary issues would occur, or if they did, it would be in a controlled, neutered context. Then I would buy the educational system, and convince everyone that the money system is a fantastic, beneficial thing, and use academics to ridicule those feckless and deranged conspiracy theorists who dare to say otherwise.

Then I might try my hand at buying some politicians, or maybe start some wars using the Rothschild formula.

Not necessarily in that order!
__________________
"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 9th December 2017, 04:42 AM   #350
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I would start with buying up the media and making sure no discussion of monetary issues would occur, or if they did, it would be in a controlled, neutered context.
LOL, another conspiracy theorist who naively thinks that controlling the media somehow means :"No more critical thoughts in human brains". LOL.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Then I would buy the educational system, and convince everyone that the money system is a fantastic, beneficial thing, and use academics to ridicule those feckless and deranged conspiracy theorists who dare to say otherwise.
I'd like to purchase one educational system, please. And again, the baseless assumption that "buying" the educational system somehow silences EVERY critical thought. LOL

Not sure if I should just envy you for your simple and naive view of the world.
__________________
Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god.


Christopher Hitchens
StackOverflow 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 9th December 2017, 04:38 PM   #351
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Not sure if I should just envy you for your simple and naive view of the world.
You should watch interviews of Norman Dodd and Charlotte Iserbyt, about the Reece Commission. Then you will be that much less ignorant.
__________________
"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 10th December 2017, 12:23 AM   #352
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If you had a printing press, a debit card with no limit, or access to unlimited credit, how much would you be "satisfied" with?
The rich mates know that it would do them no good if all they got from the Fed was Zimbabwean dollars. They want the Fed to print as much money as is economically feasible for themselves and give nothing to anybody else.

That is why we only see periodic bouts of QE.
__________________
"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 online now   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 10th December 2017, 03:21 AM   #353
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The rich mates know that it would do them no good if all they got from the Fed was Zimbabwean dollars. They want the Fed to print as much money as is economically feasible for themselves and give nothing to anybody else.

That is why we only see periodic bouts of QE.
I agree, but I don't think it's periodic, it's perpetual. QE happens all the time, 24/7. The scale may vary depending on whether there is an economic crisis, but the fact remains.

If I could counterfeit perfect bills that would go undetected in perpetuity, how far do you think I would take it? How would my activity ever be detected by anyone? I mean, just look at this forum. Nobody bats an eye at $15,000 bitcoin, or tiny houses and condominiums selling for millions in San Francisco. It's the perfect crime, and nobody cares, making it even that much more perfect.
__________________
"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 10th December 2017, 03:22 AM   #354
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
You should watch interviews of Norman Dodd and Charlotte Iserbyt, about the Reece Commission. Then you will be that much less ignorant.
Do these people sell educational systems and media?
__________________
Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god.


Christopher Hitchens
StackOverflow 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 10th December 2017, 03:23 AM   #355
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Do these people sell educational systems and media?
Watch the interviews, and find out!
__________________
"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 10th December 2017, 03:45 AM   #356
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Watch the interviews, and find out!
Thanks, I'll pass. I'm still way too young to enter the "Paranoid delusional geriatrics" club.
__________________
Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god.


Christopher Hitchens
StackOverflow 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 10th December 2017, 04:35 AM   #357
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,822
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I agree, but I don't think it's periodic, it's perpetual. QE happens all the time, 24/7.
How does this work? Do they do if "off the books" but new bank reserves appear "on the books"?

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If I could counterfeit perfect bills that would go undetected in perpetuity ...........
I thought it was the Treasury that printed the bills.
__________________
"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 online now   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 10th December 2017, 02:27 PM   #358
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,195
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
How does this work? Do they do if "off the books" but new bank reserves appear "on the books"?


I thought it was the Treasury that printed the bills.
A department within the treasury prints both T-Bond Certificates and Fed Reserve Notes, correct.

The Market Committee of the Fed is who decides when and how many, however.

Then they exchange these two items printed from the same printer and viola...they have "created value."

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be
Delphic Oracle 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 10th December 2017, 08:18 PM   #359
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Thanks, I'll pass. I'm still way too young to enter the "Paranoid delusional geriatrics" club view evidence which may conflict with my preconceived bias.
Fixed this for you. Enjoy, ignorance is bliss.
__________________
"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 10th December 2017, 08:20 PM   #360
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
How does this work? Do they do if "off the books" but new bank reserves appear "on the books"?
The Fed engages in "QE" every time it buys an asset. Money gets created ex nihilo, in exchange for the asset. It's not like this is exceptional.

Quote:
I thought it was the Treasury that printed the bills.
It is, through the bureau of engraving and printing. I was remarking on the power of unlimited money, and what I would probably do with it being subject to the evil whims of human nature.
__________________
"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
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 09:15 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.