On July 12 2011 12:08 tadL wrote: The Euro will stay stable, cause Europe has more options. Paying or kicking Greece out are just simple ones. Ofc Europe is debating what to do and ofc all countrys try t get the best deal out of it. But in the end - the Euro will stay save. I cauld go in deeper analysis but my english is quiete terrible i think and it is sad to say it but i really dont think that us americans will understand it. ofc there are some in this forum but after following this forum and his members...it is not worth it. Who wants to understand it does it already cause he or she reads the right newspapers.
I would like to ask what will happen with the united states after august. Cause now you have zero money. And after august you have to pay things. And without a change you cant pay. Will be interesting to see what an stupid solution republicans and democrats will find. Cause the only real solution is not a possible choice thx to politic.
btw I love a country where Hedgefonds-billionaire have a single law that protects them so that they have to pay just 15% of taxes.
I don't know if I'm right, but I think we can't kick Greece or any other member of the EU out.
Why is that? Seriously, is there something that forbids countries from being removed from the eu once they get their foot in?
There was simply no preparation for this kind of situation. But on the other hand if the rest of the EU wanted Greece out the probably could do it. They just don't want to do it.
On July 12 2011 07:18 vlf wrote: For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
I'm kind of in his boat, too. I think it's a huge problem and it's only going to get worse as things keep ramping up exponentially.
I think of it this way: Let's say the world only consists of me, a banker who has $100 and a market that produces food (terribly simplistic, but stick with me). I take out a loan for $100 and pay my food bill to the market for food for a week. Let's say I'm also the guy working for the market and my salary for that week is $100, which I pay back to the Bank (let's just ignore the fact that I could just make my own food for nothing and eat it, for the moment).
After that week is up, I've got to pay an interest of say, $5. Well, where does the $5 come from? I've basically got to go out into the world and find/dig up/create something worth $5 and give that to the bank to make up the difference. The market couldn't pay me $105, because it didn't have $105 itself. Only the $100 that I was paying it for the food. So, $5 has to magically come out of nowhere from the world around me, or I invent something of value (turning something simple like sand, into a glass sculpture that has artistic value, for example - but if there is only $100 in the world between me, the banker and the supermarket, doesn't someone else with $5 have to enter the picture?). On an epic scale as large as our planet, where money doesn't really exist as a tangible thing, but merely a debt to be paid, something of monetary value to pay back that debt has to keep coming from the world around us. And as the money keeps getting relent over and over again, it becomes an exponential situation.
Big corporations that are producing things like iPads, turning a cheap amount of real-world materials into something far more expensive than the sum of the parts, or artists producing heavily-sought-after pieces of art, are creating value out of essentially nothing, which (I imagine) is supposed to match how money comes out of nowhere. But, I don't think the world is going to keep up with a pace like that. Peak Oil is going to be a pretty big moment in our monetary future.
This is how I currently think of the whole monetary situation in my head. I'm hoping I've just made some people truly wise in the nature of economics blow a gasket with my grosse oversimplification who will take the time to correct me, because the situation looks pretty bleak from where I'm standing.
You just demonstrated a perfect understanding of the solution to the problem you think you see. It is possible to create wealth by giving order to disordered bits and bobs; soil, water, and sunlight can be arranged into a plant, which is worth much more to a person than that dirt, water, and sunshine were. Thus a farmer can spend some of his time creating wealth and then use that wealth to improve his own life in some way. The same goes for everyone else who works in the private sector.
Without wealth creation, you cannot have an economy because everyone who performs any kind of action also consumes wealth; that plant from earlier is worth considerably less once it has passed through someone's bowels. To keep its economy in good order, a society has to be continually exerting itself in the production of more wealth than it consumes.
Well that's nice to hear, though my concern is less about where the money comes from, and more about the exponential growth of wealth relative to the world being finite in it's resources. What happens when we hit Peak Oil? I think the economic world is finally going to realize that exponential growth of production is just not possible. But, hey, at least there will be economic reasons for going back into space!
exactly that.
our money system would work fine if wealth creation could grow exponantially too. But i don't think thats possible and everyone who has some basic understanding of the exponential graph should realize why.
oh lol, you got that from a youtube video too, I've seen the same one. Just so you know, economic growth is also measured exponentially so what you are saying is that our money system is fine. I have the feeling that is not what you wanted to say :D
measured exponentially ? wtf are you talking about.
i am speaking about exponential growth. looks like this:
and what the hell is wrong about a youtube video ? Its just a bit of information that can make you think and research into the topic. i first didnt believe it as well ... seems just too unreal. But i have yet to find evidence that what it says is not true.
On July 12 2011 07:18 vlf wrote: For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
I'm kind of in his boat, too. I think it's a huge problem and it's only going to get worse as things keep ramping up exponentially.
I think of it this way: Let's say the world only consists of me, a banker who has $100 and a market that produces food (terribly simplistic, but stick with me). I take out a loan for $100 and pay my food bill to the market for food for a week. Let's say I'm also the guy working for the market and my salary for that week is $100, which I pay back to the Bank (let's just ignore the fact that I could just make my own food for nothing and eat it, for the moment).
After that week is up, I've got to pay an interest of say, $5. Well, where does the $5 come from? I've basically got to go out into the world and find/dig up/create something worth $5 and give that to the bank to make up the difference. The market couldn't pay me $105, because it didn't have $105 itself. Only the $100 that I was paying it for the food. So, $5 has to magically come out of nowhere from the world around me, or I invent something of value (turning something simple like sand, into a glass sculpture that has artistic value, for example - but if there is only $100 in the world between me, the banker and the supermarket, doesn't someone else with $5 have to enter the picture?). On an epic scale as large as our planet, where money doesn't really exist as a tangible thing, but merely a debt to be paid, something of monetary value to pay back that debt has to keep coming from the world around us. And as the money keeps getting relent over and over again, it becomes an exponential situation.
Big corporations that are producing things like iPads, turning a cheap amount of real-world materials into something far more expensive than the sum of the parts, or artists producing heavily-sought-after pieces of art, are creating value out of essentially nothing, which (I imagine) is supposed to match how money comes out of nowhere. But, I don't think the world is going to keep up with a pace like that. Peak Oil is going to be a pretty big moment in our monetary future.
This is how I currently think of the whole monetary situation in my head. I'm hoping I've just made some people truly wise in the nature of economics blow a gasket with my grosse oversimplification who will take the time to correct me, because the situation looks pretty bleak from where I'm standing.
You just demonstrated a perfect understanding of the solution to the problem you think you see. It is possible to create wealth by giving order to disordered bits and bobs; soil, water, and sunlight can be arranged into a plant, which is worth much more to a person than that dirt, water, and sunshine were. Thus a farmer can spend some of his time creating wealth and then use that wealth to improve his own life in some way. The same goes for everyone else who works in the private sector.
Without wealth creation, you cannot have an economy because everyone who performs any kind of action also consumes wealth; that plant from earlier is worth considerably less once it has passed through someone's bowels. To keep its economy in good order, a society has to be continually exerting itself in the production of more wealth than it consumes.
Well that's nice to hear, though my concern is less about where the money comes from, and more about the exponential growth of wealth relative to the world being finite in it's resources. What happens when we hit Peak Oil? I think the economic world is finally going to realize that exponential growth of production is just not possible. But, hey, at least there will be economic reasons for going back into space!
exactly that.
our money system would work fine if wealth creation could grow exponantially too. But i don't think thats possible and everyone who has some basic understanding of the exponential graph should realize why.
oh lol, you got that from a youtube video too, I've seen the same one. Just so you know, economic growth is also measured exponentially so what you are saying is that our money system is fine. I have the feeling that is not what you wanted to say :D
measured exponentially ? wtf are you talking about.
i am speaking about exponential growth. looks like this:
and what the hell is wrong about a youtube video ? Its just a bit of information that can make you think and research into the topic. i first didnt believe it as well ... seems just too unreal. But i have yet to find evidence that what it says is not true.
Wealth creation grows along an exponential curve as well. You don't always need to go out and catch an animal, harvest some fruit, drill for some oil, or otherwise deplete the earth to create wealth. People invent more and more valuable products as time goes on, and although we will eventually run out of natural resources with which we can create wealth because of entropy, that day is VERY far away and "peak oil" will only be a slight hiccup on the way there.
Example of wealth creation's exponential growth: The computer you are viewing this on is the embodiment of significantly more wealth than most people of similar social standing to you would accumulate in their entire lifetimes back in the Middle Ages.
On July 12 2011 07:18 vlf wrote: For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
I'm kind of in his boat, too. I think it's a huge problem and it's only going to get worse as things keep ramping up exponentially.
I think of it this way: Let's say the world only consists of me, a banker who has $100 and a market that produces food (terribly simplistic, but stick with me). I take out a loan for $100 and pay my food bill to the market for food for a week. Let's say I'm also the guy working for the market and my salary for that week is $100, which I pay back to the Bank (let's just ignore the fact that I could just make my own food for nothing and eat it, for the moment).
After that week is up, I've got to pay an interest of say, $5. Well, where does the $5 come from? I've basically got to go out into the world and find/dig up/create something worth $5 and give that to the bank to make up the difference. The market couldn't pay me $105, because it didn't have $105 itself. Only the $100 that I was paying it for the food. So, $5 has to magically come out of nowhere from the world around me, or I invent something of value (turning something simple like sand, into a glass sculpture that has artistic value, for example - but if there is only $100 in the world between me, the banker and the supermarket, doesn't someone else with $5 have to enter the picture?). On an epic scale as large as our planet, where money doesn't really exist as a tangible thing, but merely a debt to be paid, something of monetary value to pay back that debt has to keep coming from the world around us. And as the money keeps getting relent over and over again, it becomes an exponential situation.
Big corporations that are producing things like iPads, turning a cheap amount of real-world materials into something far more expensive than the sum of the parts, or artists producing heavily-sought-after pieces of art, are creating value out of essentially nothing, which (I imagine) is supposed to match how money comes out of nowhere. But, I don't think the world is going to keep up with a pace like that. Peak Oil is going to be a pretty big moment in our monetary future.
This is how I currently think of the whole monetary situation in my head. I'm hoping I've just made some people truly wise in the nature of economics blow a gasket with my grosse oversimplification who will take the time to correct me, because the situation looks pretty bleak from where I'm standing.
Your line of thinking is erroneous. If you think in terms of money you will always be depressed by the idea of interest.
Think of it in terms of the total amount of actual goods. You produce are part of the food market that produces food. And there's a banker. The banker isn't producing any real goods but he's obviously consuming them.
So basically you and the rest of the food market are creating for yourselves and for the bureaucracy. As long as the bureaucracy is kept to the minimum the efficiency of the system is fine.
If you're asking the question "well where does the 5$ come from?" you're asking the wrong question, because the real question is where does the 5$ go? The Banker needs to eat too. He has to buy food from you guys and he eats it.
What if he doesn't eat it, and it gets horded? Well if it gets horded, then the total money in the system is decreased, and the food becomes cheaper. You need to borrow less money to buy a less expensive product, your sell your product for also less money, and the interest remains proportionally smaller.
The idea here obviously is that in order to survive without debt you need to produce a little bit more than you consume, because remember you and the rest of the market are feeding the banker who produces no real wealth.
The important part here is that the INTEREST VALUE stays unregulated. If the interest for whatever reason is jacked up by the banker, then at some point (especially if your community of people in the food market is big enough,) it will actually be more productive one of you guys to stop working create his own bank, and then you guys will feed him instead and he will provide more acceptable rates, but still rates enough that allow him to stay well-fed as well, that's all.
The competition of a free market takes care of the banking problem in a way that ...yes all financial markets don't create any real wealth, but the market if unconstrained will be able to place a price on the importance of what the extra financial bureaucracy is worth, partially in terms of interest rates, partially in terms of salaries of people working at a bank, etc etc.
It is government regulation that creates market unbalances which result in bubbles, and it is bubbles that result in the busts during which so many people suffer.
Otherwise, free market has a tendency to try to stay in a stable non-inflationary state especially when there's a fair court system available to resolve disputes.
Italy seems to be responding to the speculation attempts and both the stock market and the bond market are slowly recovering. Italy will default on its own, it's too big to be lead to default by speculation.
The current new financial law is missing 15bilion€, which are financed by a yet-to-be-defined fiscal reform in 2014, after the next elections :D I guess that made the markets rage a bit, who didn't understand that's just the way italian polticians work, trying to force the next government to make impopular austerity measures so it will be short lived.
Italy can easily be saved by improving the way the EU works, which should aim at making the euro lose some of its value and reduce the spread between bonds, maybe even take a step further, after the monetary union, make a bond union, which would also give more control over local governments spending. That would get rid of the spread problem and give speculators and rating agencies nothing to work on. Failing that, yeah the euro will go down, and possibly even the financial system as we know it (because of the domino effect in this case, most sovereign states will default, including germany and the us), paving the way for a new and hopefully better one.
On July 13 2011 08:26 Ganondorf wrote: Italy seems to be responding to the speculation attempts and both the stock market and the bond market are slowly recovering. Italy will default on its own, it's too big to be lead to default by speculation.
The current new financial law is missing 15bilion€, which are financed by a yet-to-be-defined fiscal reform in 2014, after the next elections :D I guess that made the markets rage a bit, who didn't understand that's just the way italian polticians work, trying to force the next government to make impopular austerity measures so it will be short lived.
Italy can easily be saved by improving the way the EU works, which should aim at making the euro lose some of its value and reduce the spread between bonds, maybe even take a step further, after the monetary union, make a bond union, which would also give more control over local governments spending. That would get rid of the spread problem and give speculators and rating agencies nothing to work on. Failing that, yeah the euro will go down, and possibly even the financial system as we know it (because of the domino effect in this case, most sovereign states will default, including germany and the us), paving the way for a new and hopefully better one.
There is no way the healthier Eurostates will go with a bond union just because Italy doesn't want (or can't because of politics) to reduce spending. Instead of taking measures to ensure healthy fiscal policy you want the easy/short sighted option of just shifting the burden of risk on to other nations. Your idea can't even work since no nation I can think of will give up its fiscal autonomy to some central agency that would determine the amount of money one can borrow. I'm sorry but this just comes across as a spoiled brat that doesn't want to clean his room.
On July 12 2011 07:18 vlf wrote: For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
I'm kind of in his boat, too. I think it's a huge problem and it's only going to get worse as things keep ramping up exponentially.
I think of it this way: Let's say the world only consists of me, a banker who has $100 and a market that produces food (terribly simplistic, but stick with me). I take out a loan for $100 and pay my food bill to the market for food for a week. Let's say I'm also the guy working for the market and my salary for that week is $100, which I pay back to the Bank (let's just ignore the fact that I could just make my own food for nothing and eat it, for the moment).
After that week is up, I've got to pay an interest of say, $5. Well, where does the $5 come from? I've basically got to go out into the world and find/dig up/create something worth $5 and give that to the bank to make up the difference. The market couldn't pay me $105, because it didn't have $105 itself. Only the $100 that I was paying it for the food. So, $5 has to magically come out of nowhere from the world around me, or I invent something of value (turning something simple like sand, into a glass sculpture that has artistic value, for example - but if there is only $100 in the world between me, the banker and the supermarket, doesn't someone else with $5 have to enter the picture?). On an epic scale as large as our planet, where money doesn't really exist as a tangible thing, but merely a debt to be paid, something of monetary value to pay back that debt has to keep coming from the world around us. And as the money keeps getting relent over and over again, it becomes an exponential situation.
Big corporations that are producing things like iPads, turning a cheap amount of real-world materials into something far more expensive than the sum of the parts, or artists producing heavily-sought-after pieces of art, are creating value out of essentially nothing, which (I imagine) is supposed to match how money comes out of nowhere. But, I don't think the world is going to keep up with a pace like that. Peak Oil is going to be a pretty big moment in our monetary future.
This is how I currently think of the whole monetary situation in my head. I'm hoping I've just made some people truly wise in the nature of economics blow a gasket with my grosse oversimplification who will take the time to correct me, because the situation looks pretty bleak from where I'm standing.
You just demonstrated a perfect understanding of the solution to the problem you think you see. It is possible to create wealth by giving order to disordered bits and bobs; soil, water, and sunlight can be arranged into a plant, which is worth much more to a person than that dirt, water, and sunshine were. Thus a farmer can spend some of his time creating wealth and then use that wealth to improve his own life in some way. The same goes for everyone else who works in the private sector.
Without wealth creation, you cannot have an economy because everyone who performs any kind of action also consumes wealth; that plant from earlier is worth considerably less once it has passed through someone's bowels. To keep its economy in good order, a society has to be continually exerting itself in the production of more wealth than it consumes.
Well that's nice to hear, though my concern is less about where the money comes from, and more about the exponential growth of wealth relative to the world being finite in it's resources. What happens when we hit Peak Oil? I think the economic world is finally going to realize that exponential growth of production is just not possible. But, hey, at least there will be economic reasons for going back into space!
exactly that.
our money system would work fine if wealth creation could grow exponantially too. But i don't think thats possible and everyone who has some basic understanding of the exponential graph should realize why.
oh lol, you got that from a youtube video too, I've seen the same one. Just so you know, economic growth is also measured exponentially so what you are saying is that our money system is fine. I have the feeling that is not what you wanted to say :D
measured exponentially ? wtf are you talking about.
i am speaking about exponential growth. looks like this:
and what the hell is wrong about a youtube video ? Its just a bit of information that can make you think and research into the topic. i first didnt believe it as well ... seems just too unreal. But i have yet to find evidence that what it says is not true.
Wealth creation grows along an exponential curve as well. You don't always need to go out and catch an animal, harvest some fruit, drill for some oil, or otherwise deplete the earth to create wealth. People invent more and more valuable products as time goes on, and although we will eventually run out of natural resources with which we can create wealth because of entropy, that day is VERY far away and "peak oil" will only be a slight hiccup on the way there.
Example of wealth creation's exponential growth: The computer you are viewing this on is the embodiment of significantly more wealth than most people of similar social standing to you would accumulate in their entire lifetimes back in the Middle Ages.
I don't believe we are able to do that, grow wealth exponantially forever... its just madness. At the beginning it works and everything is good. But after 70 years things get crazy... the exponential graph just rises to quick.
Sooner or later the dept of this world will be renegotiated and we start again. Hopefully without too much chaos.
MY opinion is that the EU should just stop playing by the rules and start typing their money like the US have been doing for decades when they run out of dollars. I dont think the Greece situation is gonna have such an effect on the EURO, as much as the european countries' economies. germany and france are invulnerable at this stage, but if greece suffers a default countries like ireland, portugal, spain even italy will find it all the harder to borrow money or pay out their exisitng debts. There wouldnt be a general currency crisis, just that lots of countries will get get pulled by the river that is greece.
That;s why the EU still supports us even though all we have been doing for the last 30 years is spend its money on ill conceived projects and bribing and yachts for the state officials. Greece is in the beneficial place to be the first country to threaten with a default, which would drift more countries into default aswell.
since having greece go bankrupt is the worst case scenario for all the eurozone, they keep feeding us and giving more and more lawns with no hope of us ever returning them.
imo this will expedentially lead to greece defaulting, but maybe untill then the rest of the countries are safer so it doesnt resort in an avalanche. hope untill that point i have escaped greece and work somewhere else where i dont have a personal debt to pay. THe troica is like a pimp that pumps you full of free drugs and then asks you to pay your way for your next dose. thats all they are. goodjob on destroying a nation!!!
On July 12 2011 07:18 vlf wrote: For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
I'm kind of in his boat, too. I think it's a huge problem and it's only going to get worse as things keep ramping up exponentially.
I think of it this way: Let's say the world only consists of me, a banker who has $100 and a market that produces food (terribly simplistic, but stick with me). I take out a loan for $100 and pay my food bill to the market for food for a week. Let's say I'm also the guy working for the market and my salary for that week is $100, which I pay back to the Bank (let's just ignore the fact that I could just make my own food for nothing and eat it, for the moment).
After that week is up, I've got to pay an interest of say, $5. Well, where does the $5 come from? I've basically got to go out into the world and find/dig up/create something worth $5 and give that to the bank to make up the difference. The market couldn't pay me $105, because it didn't have $105 itself. Only the $100 that I was paying it for the food. So, $5 has to magically come out of nowhere from the world around me, or I invent something of value (turning something simple like sand, into a glass sculpture that has artistic value, for example - but if there is only $100 in the world between me, the banker and the supermarket, doesn't someone else with $5 have to enter the picture?). On an epic scale as large as our planet, where money doesn't really exist as a tangible thing, but merely a debt to be paid, something of monetary value to pay back that debt has to keep coming from the world around us. And as the money keeps getting relent over and over again, it becomes an exponential situation.
Big corporations that are producing things like iPads, turning a cheap amount of real-world materials into something far more expensive than the sum of the parts, or artists producing heavily-sought-after pieces of art, are creating value out of essentially nothing, which (I imagine) is supposed to match how money comes out of nowhere. But, I don't think the world is going to keep up with a pace like that. Peak Oil is going to be a pretty big moment in our monetary future.
This is how I currently think of the whole monetary situation in my head. I'm hoping I've just made some people truly wise in the nature of economics blow a gasket with my grosse oversimplification who will take the time to correct me, because the situation looks pretty bleak from where I'm standing.
You just demonstrated a perfect understanding of the solution to the problem you think you see. It is possible to create wealth by giving order to disordered bits and bobs; soil, water, and sunlight can be arranged into a plant, which is worth much more to a person than that dirt, water, and sunshine were. Thus a farmer can spend some of his time creating wealth and then use that wealth to improve his own life in some way. The same goes for everyone else who works in the private sector.
Without wealth creation, you cannot have an economy because everyone who performs any kind of action also consumes wealth; that plant from earlier is worth considerably less once it has passed through someone's bowels. To keep its economy in good order, a society has to be continually exerting itself in the production of more wealth than it consumes.
Well that's nice to hear, though my concern is less about where the money comes from, and more about the exponential growth of wealth relative to the world being finite in it's resources. What happens when we hit Peak Oil? I think the economic world is finally going to realize that exponential growth of production is just not possible. But, hey, at least there will be economic reasons for going back into space!
exactly that.
our money system would work fine if wealth creation could grow exponantially too. But i don't think thats possible and everyone who has some basic understanding of the exponential graph should realize why.
oh lol, you got that from a youtube video too, I've seen the same one. Just so you know, economic growth is also measured exponentially so what you are saying is that our money system is fine. I have the feeling that is not what you wanted to say :D
measured exponentially ? wtf are you talking about.
i am speaking about exponential growth. looks like this:
and what the hell is wrong about a youtube video ? Its just a bit of information that can make you think and research into the topic. i first didnt believe it as well ... seems just too unreal. But i have yet to find evidence that what it says is not true.
Wealth creation grows along an exponential curve as well. You don't always need to go out and catch an animal, harvest some fruit, drill for some oil, or otherwise deplete the earth to create wealth. People invent more and more valuable products as time goes on, and although we will eventually run out of natural resources with which we can create wealth because of entropy, that day is VERY far away and "peak oil" will only be a slight hiccup on the way there.
Example of wealth creation's exponential growth: The computer you are viewing this on is the embodiment of significantly more wealth than most people of similar social standing to you would accumulate in their entire lifetimes back in the Middle Ages.
I don't believe we are able to do that, grow wealth exponantially forever... its just madness. At the beginning it works and everything is good. But after 70 years things get crazy... the exponential graph just rises to quick.
Sooner or later the dept of this world will be renegotiated and we start again. Hopefully without too much chaos.
I would be more cautious when using the term "wealth". Real wealth means that more products which satisfy someone's demand are beeing produced.
No fiat currencies ever last, they always destroy themselves, its just a matter of time. I think the Euro's days are numbered, and I can see many Euro-States going back to a National Currency (Having a competitive currency market that anyone could enter is about 0.0000% likely in Europe, though it would be amazing if there was a movement to De-nationalize currency like we have here in the US. Open up some Hayek!) . With more Euro-States getting rated junk status and more to come, it's only going to get worse if you guys refuse to live in reality. Your Welfare States are bankrupting Europe, and that is with a subsidized defense from the US! (Which the US will be going bankrupt here soon from (along with the Welfare State))
On July 13 2011 21:44 Gaga wrote: sadly the vid is only in german but here is a german broker explaining in public television exactly what i am talking about.
this is how world wars start. massive debts, defaults, destruction of governments, food costs skyrocket, dictators arrise, some minority is scapegoated and boom war.
Well EU is knee deep in shit and more coming. Italy is falling also Ireland may need moar aid like Greece. And we need to try to bail them out else whole system collapses.
I just dont understand the people in Greece for instance. Wtf are they rioting for? They want to pull as even deeper? Obviously smthing is wrong when ppl retire at around age of 52. IMO they should just suck it up like others when they werent doing good and not just riot in the streets.
I just cant wait to bail other countries out for them living better than they can afford and lying to EU about their statistics. Gotta also see what happens to USA with their debts to China and other countries.
On July 14 2011 03:54 Shagg wrote: Well EU is knee deep in shit and more coming. Italy is falling also Ireland may need moar aid like Greece. And we need to try to bail them out else whole system collapses.
I just dont understand the people in Greece for instance. Wtf are they rioting for? They want to pull as even deeper? Obviously smthing is wrong when ppl retire at around age of 52. IMO they should just suck it up like others when they werent doing good and not just riot in the streets.
I just cant wait to bail other countries out for them living better than they can afford and lying to EU about their statistics. Gotta also see what happens to USA with their debts to China and other countries.
Before making posts like that please read the entire thread regarding Greece's situation and before flaming everyone who doesn't want their lives to be fucked up, because even though they pay their taxes and are descent citizens are overrun by shitty governments and corrupted jackasses,protest against unfair austerity measures,be more thinkfull.Please once again this thing about getting retirement at the age of 52 IS NOT CORRECT.Jesus,learn your facts! edit
and one last thing mate.if you do not want to riot on the streets you can stay on your couch and suck it up just as you said it.people are rioting because the middle and lower classes are driven to poverty even though they had nothing to do with all this crisis and are forced to pay.spare me ffs
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Exp.svg)
EPT
