|
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote:
I understand that loans etc have to be given out to pay for stuff which can't be afforded.
I just don't understand why certain institutions are given the right to print money, support the institutions that need it, creating a bigger difference between who's rich and poor or how you want to call it and still go from the motto: unlimited growth.
I guess I need to come to the realization that it's not about individuals any longer, but that corporations have to be seen as the players here. But how can a faceless, ultimately non existing, thing steer where people have to go and what people have to do? It seems like a vicious monster to me, that keeps being stuffed by money untill everyone is dry.
Also, because I'm no economist, yet I doubt many economists can answer this question: how can this current system keep working if population keeps growing, where big corporations keep a major cut of all the money floating around, which is (I think, if I'm wrong, explanation instead of bashing please) proportional to all the money in circulation (cut increases as amount of money increases) Won't global poverty rise? Won't people have a harder time to cope with certain payments in, let's say 10-20 years?
It depends on what your definition of poverty is. If the gap between upper and lower class widens (notice how I didn't say rich and poor) the standard of living can still increase, and lower class wealth can also increase. So I don't think everyone will "run dry". As long as we continue to believe that this fiat currency has value, and that money continues to trickle down.
To answer your last question: I believe the answer is yes. Because resources eventually become scarce and more expensive. But in that situation the population will stop growing and may even begin to recede, but history has shown us that technology is capable of increasing crop yields and making energy more efficient. I just don't believe it will be in a "Doomsday Scenario" as many people believe. I think that can only happen if there is a communistic takeover of resources.
|
On January 23 2012 02:01 helclaw wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 01:31 EternaLLegacy wrote:
The information in the OP is accurate, but the conclusion is not.
You fail to see that the only way the bankers were ever able to operate at such a grand scale and with such great power is through the violence of the State. Without violence enforced monopolies on banking, violence enforced wars to rack up debts, and violence enforced taxation to pay those back, the large banking cartel could never have existed.
Remove the power from politicians and the banks have to compete on the open market and can't put governments in their pockets. This gets a bit tough because money buys violent enforcement. If the government has no power and no money. The banks will simply pay for violence and enforcement themselves. Take note of the "British East India Company" maintaining a monopoly on trade. It took the Government( Parliament of the United Kingdom) passing "East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873" to break up the monopoly. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
How will private banks get money?
Yes the answer is obv., from private lenders.
What do private lenders want? A good interest rate.
Banks that are corrupt and misues the lenders money isn't going to give out high interst rate, hence they will go bankrupt.
|
Why do all the posts that disagree with the OP get warnings?
Well,
I disagree!
*runs
|
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote:
I understand that loans etc have to be given out to pay for stuff which can't be afforded.
I just don't understand why certain institutions are given the right to print money, support the institutions that need it, creating a bigger difference between who's rich and poor or how you want to call it and still go from the motto: unlimited growth.
I guess I need to come to the realization that it's not about individuals any longer, but that corporations have to be seen as the players here. But how can a faceless, ultimately non existing, thing steer where people have to go and what people have to do? It seems like a vicious monster to me, that keeps being stuffed by money untill everyone is dry.
Also, because I'm no economist, yet I doubt many economists can answer this question: how can this current system keep working if population keeps growing, where big corporations keep a major cut of all the money floating around, which is (I think, if I'm wrong, explanation instead of bashing please) proportional to all the money in circulation (cut increases as amount of money increases) Won't global poverty rise? Won't people have a harder time to cope with certain payments in, let's say 10-20 years?
To your first question:
I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises.
Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now.
Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises.
To your second question:
Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth.
Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations.
Assuming constant amount of shareholders.
Assuming constant money suply.
Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal.
Yes poor people will do worse.
However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of.
|
That was a fun read but I'm not going to bother getting caught up in this thread. ^_^ Thanks OP.
|
On January 23 2012 03:40 TheBatman wrote:
Why do all the posts that disagree with the OP get warnings?
Well,
I disagree!
*runs
It doesn't work like that. Notice that the posts that got warnings weren't exactly elaborate responses in any way whatsoever.
|
I've read a book recently that includet the rotschild family and i see taht most of the things said in the book are true if we say that all that you are saying is true.I'm really happy that youve made this post and uve said that your family had some close contacts with the big names in the EU history at that time so i can now make my conclusion on the information i had seen and read
by the way name of the book was "Secret Societies and Their Power in The 20th Century" by Jan Van Helsing
the book itself is really interesting but dont take everything that you redd as 100% true informaton but also dont say that everything is one big fat lie.
Thank you for your post again and sorry for my bad english and i just want to say how awesome the internet is in the way that it gains a free acsess to different "wells" of information to everyone whos smart enough to look for it.
|
On January 23 2012 03:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote:
I understand that loans etc have to be given out to pay for stuff which can't be afforded.
I just don't understand why certain institutions are given the right to print money, support the institutions that need it, creating a bigger difference between who's rich and poor or how you want to call it and still go from the motto: unlimited growth.
I guess I need to come to the realization that it's not about individuals any longer, but that corporations have to be seen as the players here. But how can a faceless, ultimately non existing, thing steer where people have to go and what people have to do? It seems like a vicious monster to me, that keeps being stuffed by money untill everyone is dry.
Also, because I'm no economist, yet I doubt many economists can answer this question: how can this current system keep working if population keeps growing, where big corporations keep a major cut of all the money floating around, which is (I think, if I'm wrong, explanation instead of bashing please) proportional to all the money in circulation (cut increases as amount of money increases) Won't global poverty rise? Won't people have a harder time to cope with certain payments in, let's say 10-20 years? To your first question: I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises. Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now. Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises. To your second question: Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth. Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations. Assuming constant amount of shareholders. Assuming constant money suply. Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal. Yes poor people will do worse. However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of.
I will be dealing primarily with your last paragraph.
The "growth in purchasing power" argument has been a mainstay in capitalist apologia since the early 20th century, but like most canned arguments is a strawman.
Socialist/Communist critics of capitalism object to income inequality only superficially as an indicator of the inequality of power relations that underlie human societies. The problem of the owner class, for socialists and classical anarchists, is that ownership of property with social consequences (lets say, a factory) carries not just economic but political advantage for the owner in question. In short, wealth cannot be compartmentalized as power in a particular domain, insofar as "power" is an abstract descriptor for phenomenon that give an individual influence over a larger-than-average sphere of social influence, wealth is simply another face of the same thing.
Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making.
A third point that it is constantly necessary to make is that "capitalism" does not equal "industrialization," which the entire "purchasing power" argument rests upon. Truly, thinkers coming out of the mercantile economic tradition were impressed that manufacturing processes could "create" wealth and in this sense industrialization processes were revolutionary for human economic thought, but "capitalism" is a socio-legal construct of assertions about property rights (many of which are laughably antiquated) and has nothing to do with the aforementioned revolution in economic understanding. All the classical socialists and anarchists envisaged a modern, mechanized society with factories and advanced technology - but were certainly hostile to "capitalism." Hijacking the legacy of industrialization to promote and maintain a broken and archaic system of resource distribution is both intellectually dishonest and pathetic.
|
To those do not understand how the topic is pertinent to capitalism, the topic extremely relevant to capitalism as it outlines two fundamental flaw of capitalism. Capitalism leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and a lack of regards for the welfare of the general society. To those that are doubt the validity of the events outlined in the original post, even if it was not true, the concentration of wealth among few exemplified by the Rothschild family and the heartlessness exhibited by the banks in financing wars not only definitely exists in one form or other in capitalistic societies, it is, actually, quite common and will continue to be so as long as capitalism prevails.
Capitalism is based upon competition between maximizing individuals. In theory, the competition regulates the market and converts those selfish actions into socially beneficial ones. Since the market is ruthless competitive, the individuals must invest and accumulation more capital in order to stay in the game. Thus, each capitalist is driven to the constant accumulation of capital until it becomes inefficient to do so. This implies the growth of firms is an integral part of capitalism.
The only thing that would stop firms from growing would be the diseconomies of scale, which is rather rare in the real world. The diseconomies of the scale do not appear beyond the factory level. As long as firm construct new factories to expand, there is no natural limit to their size.
Moreover, not only does competition drives firms to grow, it assists firms in the maintenance of their size. The economies of scale grants large firm an advantage over the smaller businesses. Unable to compete with the large firms, small business are either driven to bankruptcy or purchased by the large firm, further increasing the size of the large firms.
With little limit to size and great incentive to expand, it is only natural that firms would grow to greater sizes, leading to concentration of capital (therefore, wealth) among a few. This would also necessarily imply more monopolies. Thus, one should not be shocked by the events outlined in the original post, as even if it was true, the concentration of capital among a few is only natural as long as capitalism exists. Let us suppose the events outlined were false, concentration of capital among a few certainly existed, exists, and will doubtlessly exist in the future with capitalism.
Nor should individuals be surprised by the callousness of the banks. A capitalistic society drives firms and businesses to maximize their profit. To do so require only minimization of cost on part of the businesses, thus businesses disregard the cost of the transaction imposed on parties external to the transaction. In fact, laws are created to prevent corporations from doing anything but representing the interest of the shareholder, to make profit. This often leads to socially destructive behaviours. In the example of banks, by financing the war and profiting through recession, the banks reap a profit without regard of the negative cost on everyone else. Since competition is ruthless, profit maximization is absolutely necessary, thus the disregard for other’s welfare is so as well.
As demonstrated above, capitalism to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and a lack of regards for the welfare of the general society. Since majority of the individuals believe in equality (of returns or of opportunity) and (albeit not complete) altruism, capitalism is a system which operates contrary to most of its constituents’ belief system. For that reason, it is extremely unstable.
|
I wish the word "capitalism" was removed from this thread title. What the OP is describing is not capitalism, it is a perversion of capitalism.
Also, his claim that "politicians have no power" is laughable. The greatest transfers of wealth to the rich in modern society are done through corrupt politicians and political bribes.
Finally, this notion that our debt is simply the result of some Rothschild's loans is way off as well. Our massive public debt is the result of spending massive amounts of money that we never gathered in revenue, and promising wealth to entire generations without having a means of securing such wealth.
I have about 10 other points that I'd like to make, from his claim that banks profit from bankrupting nations, or that all money is simply debt... but I think I've already wasted enough time reading this nonsense.
|
"Many countries are still paying off interest on loans that are several hundred years old, and they keep growing."
It is because it is not worth paying off. I think the US still has debt to France from when they bought Louisiana. If you can invest the money someplace where you will have higher returns than the interest rate you do that.
|
On January 23 2012 04:02 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 03:40 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote:
I understand that loans etc have to be given out to pay for stuff which can't be afforded.
I just don't understand why certain institutions are given the right to print money, support the institutions that need it, creating a bigger difference between who's rich and poor or how you want to call it and still go from the motto: unlimited growth.
I guess I need to come to the realization that it's not about individuals any longer, but that corporations have to be seen as the players here. But how can a faceless, ultimately non existing, thing steer where people have to go and what people have to do? It seems like a vicious monster to me, that keeps being stuffed by money untill everyone is dry.
Also, because I'm no economist, yet I doubt many economists can answer this question: how can this current system keep working if population keeps growing, where big corporations keep a major cut of all the money floating around, which is (I think, if I'm wrong, explanation instead of bashing please) proportional to all the money in circulation (cut increases as amount of money increases) Won't global poverty rise? Won't people have a harder time to cope with certain payments in, let's say 10-20 years? To your first question: I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises. Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now. Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises. To your second question: Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth. Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations. Assuming constant amount of shareholders. Assuming constant money suply. Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal. Yes poor people will do worse. However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of. I will be dealing primarily with your last paragraph. The "growth in purchasing power" argument has been a mainstay in capitalist apologia since the early 20th century, but like most canned arguments is a strawman. Socialist/Communist critics of capitalism object to income inequality only superficially as an indicator of the inequality of power relations that underlie human societies. The problem of the owner class, for socialists and classical anarchists, is that ownership of property with social consequences (lets say, a factory) carries not just economic but political advantage for the owner in question. In short, wealth cannot be compartmentalized as power in a particular domain, insofar as "power" is an abstract descriptor for phenomenon that give an individual influence over a larger-than-average sphere of social influence, wealth is simply another face of the same thing. Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making. A third point that it is constantly necessary to make is that "capitalism" does not equal "industrialization," which the entire "purchasing power" argument rests upon. Truly, thinkers coming out of the mercantile economic tradition were impressed that manufacturing processes could "create" wealth and in this sense industrialization processes were revolutionary for human economic thought, but "capitalism" is a socio-legal construct of assertions about property rights (many of which are laughably antiquated) and has nothing to do with the aforementioned revolution in economic understanding. All the classical socialists and anarchists envisaged a modern, mechanized society with factories and advanced technology - but were certainly hostile to "capitalism." Hijacking the legacy of industrialization to promote and maintain a broken and archaic system of resource distribution is both intellectually dishonest and pathetic.
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else.
An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage).
Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
|
I'm not going to comment on the factual accuracy of this, I have no way of checking, but it was well written, and if accurate educational.
What I do wonder though is why people found this antisemetic, I can't see how it is at all, unless in a vague insinuationey way which is so open to interpretation you may as well call yourself an anti semite for jumping straight to it.
Did the OP edit out something I've missed, or are people just sensitive to the point of banal stupidity?
|
On January 23 2012 04:22 XeliN wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the factual accuracy of this, I have no way of checking, but it was well written, and if accurate educational.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rothschild family
|
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else.
An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage).
Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
His third point may not be really relevant. But I think the second point is extremely relevant. I know I didn't talk about wealth = power in that particular sense, but if I think about it..
Influence is where it is, how could someone who has a shitton of money, but nothing to show for it (so to speak) have any say in the capitalist system, other than being a consumer?
I think the big problem with the system now is that it's biased. It depends on people who run things, and people have a tendency to be greedy and stack (whatever may the reason be)
For me (again I'm just a layman) it feels like the competition to be the biggest monopoly doesn't concern the consumers anymore at the higher levels, it's just about howmuch profit a certain institution makes and to find ways how to increase that profit. This is a wrong basis since consumers are at the basis and in some way or another I think it should come back to this (why not ONE big warehouse chain where everything is offered instead of these 10000 million large to very large chains who compete for the biggest prices). Also, I feel in certain sections of the economy (like food) there is simply no need for competition. You need to provide food to the people, not try to gain a shitton of money through these means..
Couldn't an unbiased regulator (supercomputer(s)) be better? Where itself simply doesn't care about howmuch it makes, but just being interested in a system that flourishes?
|
On January 23 2012 04:48 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else.
An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage).
Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
His third point may not be really relevant. But I think the second point is extremely relevant. I know I didn't talk about wealth = power in that particular sense, but if I think about it.. Influence is where it is, how could someone who has a shitton of money, but nothing to show for it (so to speak) have any say in the capitalist system, other than being a consumer? I think the big problem with the system now is that it's biased. It depends on people who run things, and people have a tendency to be greedy and stack (whatever may the reason be) For me (again I'm just a layman) it feels like the competition to be the biggest monopoly doesn't concern the consumers anymore at the higher levels, it's just about howmuch profit a certain institution makes and to find ways how to increase that profit. This is a wrong basis since consumers are at the basis and in some way or another I think it should come back to this (why not ONE big warehouse chain where everything is offered instead of these 10000 million large to very large chains who compete for the biggest prices). Also, I feel in certain sections of the economy (like food) there is simply no need for competition. You need to provide food to the people, not try to gain a shitton of money through these means.. Couldn't an unbiased regulator (supercomputer(s)) be better? Where itself simply doesn't care about howmuch it makes, but just being interested in a system that flourishes?
Well if you define poverty as influence instead of being able to buy food, sleep in a home or whatever stuff that is nessarcary to getting your basic needs fulfilled, then sure a lot of people are poor today. But this is kinda of a political discussion, and typical one can never agree upon thos questions, as it just depends on what you kind of socierty you want. And this topic isn't really that related to op.
|
|
|
On January 23 2012 04:51 Hider wrote:
Well if you define poverty as influence instead of being able to buy food, sleep in a home or whatever stuff that is nessarcary to getting your basic needs fulfilled, then sure a lot of people are poor today. But this is kinda of a political discussion, and typical one can never agree upon thos questions, as it just depends on what you kind of socierty you want. And this topic isn't really that related to op.
I'm sorry to have derailed the subject by a bit. But one last thing, I wouldn't define wealth (or poverty) as just influence, I don't even necessarily think it's that big of a factor. I would define it as something containing numerous variables, like how able one is to buy something; influence, happiness, relative social status etc can be viewed as wealth. Certain factors will contribute much more then others and certain factors are undeniably related to other factors, but to pin it down on one aspect is not correct.
I agree this is a political, socio-economical subject and could (should) be discussed in another thread.
|
On January 23 2012 04:14 MagisterMan wrote:
"Many countries are still paying off interest on loans that are several hundred years old, and they keep growing."
It is because it is not worth paying off. I think the US still has debt to France from when they bought Louisiana. If you can invest the money someplace where you will have higher returns than the interest rate you do that.
Well if it has a higher risk adjusted return. Return in it iself is a useless term.
But I agree that the debt amount in it self isn't very usefull. However usually the DEBT/GDP ratio gives a good indication of solvency. Countries not having the capacity to reduce debt is going to face rising interest rates in a somewhat near future.
|
On January 23 2012 00:05 Rassy wrote:
The ECB lend to banks to add liquidity to the eurozone and the fight to recession, i.e. to get people loaning money again.
Yes i do know that, but lets look at this in a verry abstract way.
Why is the bank (not the ecb, the commercial bank) needed as an intermediate at all????
Its just an intermediate who charges 3% extra in exchange for virtually no services.
Why cant the ecb act like a bank, lending directly to the public for say 2%?
The public is better of, as they pay less intererst, and the bank is better of, as they now make 2% instead of the 1%
All the free profit the banks gets from this goes into bonusses for the top, the shareholders (retirement funds/the public) dont even profit from this!
the whole system is so retarded
Because the banks are making credit analys on their customers. Hence they need to be paid to do this.
One however could argue that they aren't doing a very good job.... ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
