|
On February 03 2011 00:14 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 20:40 xarthaz wrote:On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xwXK9DWd6Pc/TEigw5Z6UrI/AAAAAAAAAHI/rRhh8xMNBrc/s1600/Slide2.JPG) The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). Acton is rational by definition. Action is an implication of preference, hence implies actor prefering the course taken to all other possible choices. The likely objection to this is an appeal to objective value or behaviorism, both of which are fallacies. You want irrational action? How about the 10000 people who stayed behind in New Orleans after being told they would likely die if they didn't leave because the town was going to be flooded. What's the rational basis for that? The fact is, even though people aren't always rational actors, irrational decisions are inherently unpredictable. No system should be built around irrational choice, it just has to reward rational choice, punish irrational choice, and be immune to irrational tampering. They preferred the perceived implications of staying there to the opportunity cost, hence the action was in accordance to their preferences.
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. The term “rational action” is
therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate
ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaning-
less. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the
acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments
for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s
aims and volitions. No man is qualified to declare what would make another
man happier or less discontented. The critic either tells us what he believes he
would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance
blithely disposing of his fellow’s will and aspirations, declares what condition
of this other man would better suit himself, the critic.
When applied to the means chosen for the attainment of ends, the terms
rational and irrational imply a judgment about the expediency and adequacy
of the procedure employed. The critic approves or disapproves of the method
from the point of view of whether or not it is best suited to attain the end in
question. It is a fact that human reason is not infallible and that man very
often errs in selecting and applying means. An action unsuited to the end
sought falls short of expectation. It is contrary to purpose, but it is rational,
i.e., the outcome of a reasonable—although faulty—deliberation and an
attempt—although an ineffectual attempt—to attain a definite goal. The
doctors who a hundred years ago employed certain methods for the treatment
of cancer which our contemporary doctors reject were—from the point of
view of present-day pathology—badly instructed and therefore inefficient.
But they did not act irrationally; they did their best. It is probable that in a
hundred years more doctors will have more efficient methods at hand for
the treatment of this disease. They will be more efficient but not more
rational than our physicians.
|
Irrational action would be acting against your beliefs and values, how is that even possible? Your beliefs and values are the basis of action.
I suppose those who stayed in New Orleans perceived the threat differently than those who left, either way it doesn't demonstrate that it was irrational.
Also, what the poster above me said.
|
On February 02 2011 22:14 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 21:24 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On February 02 2011 19:27 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 02 2011 16:43 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On February 02 2011 16:13 BenBuford wrote:Exchanging "Social Security" with "road maintenance" in the following bit: No, I absolutely would not. All the projections show social ROAD MAINTENANCE going bankrupt, and TRAFFIC LIGHT MAINTENANCE spiraling out of control to the point where it consumes 30% of gdp. They are unsustainable and failing programs. I can take care of my own TRAFFIC PLANNING and I have a fundamental right to do so. The sheer audacity of someone taking my wealth from me, saying they're going to manage it for me because I'm just too fucking stupid to do it myself, and that I will rot in prison if I don't allow it to happen, just sickens me to the core. Some people do not save for ASPHALT, thats true, and they will pay the price for their ineptitude. But the fact of the matter is they have a RIGHT to manage their own affairs, and to the product of their labor. It comes down to humility. I cannot tell someone I know whats best for them, because I acknowledge that I don't know many things. There, I fixed it. Just try to grasp, that Social Security can be part of the government administration just like the maintenance of roads, public buildings, fire departments, police, armies etc. The goverment taking care of their citizens, works great in so many countries. I guess it's just conservative thinking leaving americans behind in this matter, in the western world. This is why I don't think Europeans should even be allowed to debate American issues on these forums. Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your bias appalling. You know nothing about social security stop taking jabs at the American right for your own gratification. Yeah, maybe we should open a separate thread for american stuff here and refrein from discussing it in threads that clearly were not meant to be about USA vs Europe. I don't even want to look who started the US-discussion in here but lets do that somewhere else, please? With regards to the OP, I had to think of the life cycle model by Modigliani and Brumberg. According to this model it is rational to finance early life via debt (school loans etc.), save money when you have an income of your own and eat up these saving when you are retired. The aim is to maintain a stable level of consumption. Looks kinda like this: The problem is that we are not rational, that is, we will - on average - not save enough to cover the expenses because of certain ways humans work: - failure to delay gratification (i.e. you want all the fun now and give a shit about later times) - overcondifence (you think nothing bad is gonna happen, really) Empirically speaking, people have a tendency to underinsure themselves which is why it is sensible to make certain savings mandatory. The alternative, of course, would be a lot of elderly poor people which leaves two options: let them suffer because it was their own fault or care for them which results in costs for the community (that have to be accounted for by taxes). I wasn't aware that the government was run by wizards. I thought they we're simple humans, mere mortals. Guide me wizard, I am yours to command. My simple human mind will only get in the way of my happiness. Oh wait, thats mine to pursue! May I point out that your core argument is flawed? You suggest that the government equals people but you neglect that a government is more than that. It also incorporates legal structures and institutionalized guidelines for behavior. Due to that fact, ridiculing the effectiveness of government on the basis that a government needs people as one of its components is invalid. It is the same as caliming that cars cannot go faster than humans just because humans drive them and they were made by humans.
Those legal structures and institutionalized guidelines are there to limit the authority of those in power, and would be done away with by them as soon as it was politically expedient. They don't increase the effectiveness of government, they keep it from eating the people alive. You're confusing an insane asylum constructed to contain a bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs with a complex machine.
Also, slave owners used to justify their actions by saying black people we're too stupid to take care of themselves, and that slavery was the only option for them. They didn't have to think in the slightest, everything was provided for them. I may be incredibly stupid, and I may cause myself great suffering and even death because of my ineptitude. You may be completely and utterly superior to me and capable of determining what is best for me. But my dignity and freedom is more important to me. So keep your dirty molesting thieving hands off me.
|
On February 03 2011 00:18 xarthaz wrote:
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational.
See, this is where arguments become pointless. Your rejection of my notion is a rethorical trick. This is why I based my assumptions on a normative model which allows to determine wihtin the bounds of this model whether actions are rational or not. You axiom is that nothing can be irrational, thus making the definition of rationality tautological.
Personally, I consider this statement by Mises to be stupid and not helpful unless it is utilized to back up the extreme form of subjectivism. Also, how do you explain regret in your worldview?
|
Most of the lower middle class can barely live from what they do already so i can't imagine you would pay for medicare if its optional because you'd rather have food and a heated place to live in.
|
On February 03 2011 00:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Those legal structures and institutionalized guidelines are there to limit the authority of those in power, and would be done away with by them as soon as it was politically expedient. They don't increase the effectiveness of government, they keep it from eating the people alive. You're confusing an insane asylum constructed to contain a bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs with a complex machine.
Hm, now you lost me. The strcutires I talk about are not primarily there to limit government. Consider the law that forbids assault. This is an institutionalized norm which is part of a state under the rule of law. It is not meant to limit government but to enforce abstinence from violence in order to protect weaker members of society from stronger ones.
Also, slave owners used to justify their actions by saying black people we're too stupid to take care of themselves, and that slavery was the only option for them. They didn't have to think in the slightest, everything was provided for them.
Hm, your point is that the maximally negative potential aspect of a system is the sole criterion to judge its worth? Another rethorical trick. This is equivalent to me stating that the absence of government equal man brutally oppressing and slaughtering his fellow neighbours while intentionally neglecting the potential benefits.
I may be incredibly stupid, and I may cause myself great suffering and even death because of my ineptitude. You may be completely and utterly superior to me and capable of determining what is best for me. But my dignity and freedom is more important to me. So keep your dirty molesting thieving hands off me.
Interesting point. How about a child that wants sweets for dinner instead of a healthy diet? ow about senile or mentally handicapped people? How about pedophiles and rapists? Would you not agree that certain people must be restrained from doing living out their actual preferences? Where do you draw the line? You simply cannot argue in absolutes here.
I think the answer is neither to place all powerin the hands of governments which I would never supportif you read as you can see from my previous post supporting the concept of "nudge". But the absence of all government and "everyone for himself"-mentality is equally not an option.
|
lol the theory behind social security only works if population rises constantly and gradually.
|
On February 03 2011 01:19 TrainFX wrote:
lol the theory behind social security only works if population rises constantly and gradually.
Not necessairly. If spending exceeds the costs and insurers can invest the money, you can compensate for negative population growth. But considering the development of the age 'pyramid' you are right, a system that is based on allocation instead of capital cover is doomed to fail.
|
On February 03 2011 00:20 IAmSpooner wrote:
Irrational action would be acting against your beliefs and values, how is that even possible? Your beliefs and values are the basis of action.
I suppose those who stayed in New Orleans perceived the threat differently than those who left, either way it doesn't demonstrate that it was irrational.
Also, what the poster above me said.
When most people speak of acting rationally, they're talking about acting in a way (or accepting things) according to logic or facts. Rational becomes approximately synonymous with logical.
For instance, people who go around practicing logical fallacies- even when what they're doing is explained to them- are not being rational. They're being irrational. Just because they might be being consistent with their own internal opinions or worldviews means nothing. By rejecting logic and facts, they're thinking irrationally. One can act irrationally as well by the same methodology.
This has pretty much become a semantics game, because you and xarthaz are equivocating the meaning of "rational", except your personal definitions are tautologically true and therefore pretty much meaningless.
Choosing to believe in logical truths or facts: If you reject their existence, then you're not being rational.
|
On February 03 2011 01:08 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 00:18 xarthaz wrote:
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. See, this is where arguments become pointless. Your rejection of my notion is a rethorical trick. This is why I based my assumptions on a normative model which allows to determine wihtin the bounds of this model whether actions are rational or not. You axiom is that nothing can be irrational, thus making the definition of rationality tautological. Personally, I consider this statement by Mises to be stupid and not helpful unless it is utilized to back up the extreme form of subjectivism. Also, how do you explain regret in your worldview?
It's not rhethoric. If you have a definition of rational that is satisfactory and not merely a synonym for efficiency then present it.
Not achieving the results you desired with the approach chosen or just a change of values (i.e. regret) does not contradict rationality.
|
On February 03 2011 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 00:20 IAmSpooner wrote:
Irrational action would be acting against your beliefs and values, how is that even possible? Your beliefs and values are the basis of action.
I suppose those who stayed in New Orleans perceived the threat differently than those who left, either way it doesn't demonstrate that it was irrational.
Also, what the poster above me said. When most people speak of acting rationally, they're talking about acting in a way (or accepting things) according to logic or facts. Rational becomes approximately synonymous with logical. For instance, people who go around practicing logical fallacies- even when what they're doing is explained to them- are not being rational. They're being irrational. Just because they might be being consistent with their own internal opinions or worldviews means nothing. By rejecting logic and facts, they're thinking irrationally. One can act irrationally as well by the same methodology. This has pretty much become a semantics game, because you and xarthaz are equivocating the meaning of "rational", except your personal definitions are tautologically true and therefore pretty much meaningless. Choosing to believe in logical truths or facts: If you reject their existence, then you're not being rational.
Actually I've been using the same definition of rationality I've always been using. If you want rationality/irrationality to mean disputing the truth of statements that's fine with me, but we already have the terms true/false and correct/incorrect for that.
Edit: Also, deciding to stay instead of leaving New Orleans doesn't necessarily mean that they dispute any truths.
|
On February 03 2011 01:39 IAmSpooner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 01:08 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 03 2011 00:18 xarthaz wrote:
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. See, this is where arguments become pointless. Your rejection of my notion is a rethorical trick. This is why I based my assumptions on a normative model which allows to determine wihtin the bounds of this model whether actions are rational or not. You axiom is that nothing can be irrational, thus making the definition of rationality tautological. Personally, I consider this statement by Mises to be stupid and not helpful unless it is utilized to back up the extreme form of subjectivism. Also, how do you explain regret in your worldview? It's not rhethoric. If you have a definition of rational that is satisfactory and not merely a synonym for efficiency then present it. Not achieving the results you desired with the approach chosen or just a change of values (i.e. regret) does not contradict rationality.
Why is it not rhethoric? If you ask for a definition what behavior is rational and the answer is "all" where is the point in going on to argue? Also I presented my framework, "normative rationality" wich is formalized in Utility theory. I would also accept subjective utility theory or prospect theory are frameworks bu what ever model you chose, you can always show that people violate the respective assumptions which reusults in redcued utility or increased losses for them. I find it hard to believe that people act "rational" in the sense that they have rigt not a preference ofr reducing their utility or increasing their suffering. Of course, from the subjectivist standpoint there is nothing to argue because all behavior is rational.
|
On February 03 2011 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 00:20 IAmSpooner wrote:
Irrational action would be acting against your beliefs and values, how is that even possible? Your beliefs and values are the basis of action.
I suppose those who stayed in New Orleans perceived the threat differently than those who left, either way it doesn't demonstrate that it was irrational.
Also, what the poster above me said. When most people speak of acting rationally, they're talking about acting in a way (or accepting things) according to logic or facts. Rational becomes approximately synonymous with logical. For instance, people who go around practicing logical fallacies- even when what they're doing is explained to them- are not being rational. They're being irrational. Just because they might be being consistent with their own internal opinions or worldviews means nothing. By rejecting logic and facts, they're thinking irrationally. One can act irrationally as well by the same methodology. This has pretty much become a semantics game, because you and xarthaz are equivocating the meaning of "rational", except your personal definitions are tautologically true and therefore pretty much meaningless. Choosing to believe in logical truths or facts: If you reject their existence, then you're not being rational. The definition of rational you use here is different from that of the post about people's choices being irrational in relation to SS.
Problem is implictly replacing definition of rational of "meeting some defined criterion of action" to "being the most optimal choice for a person" which is used for justification of whatever policies like SS in this thread. The error made is trying to appeal the latter definition during the justification of policy while actually using the first definition in the proof of it.
|
On February 03 2011 01:55 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 01:39 IAmSpooner wrote:On February 03 2011 01:08 Electric.Jesus wrote:On February 03 2011 00:18 xarthaz wrote:
As elaborated by Mises:
Human action is necessarily always rational. See, this is where arguments become pointless. Your rejection of my notion is a rethorical trick. This is why I based my assumptions on a normative model which allows to determine wihtin the bounds of this model whether actions are rational or not. You axiom is that nothing can be irrational, thus making the definition of rationality tautological. Personally, I consider this statement by Mises to be stupid and not helpful unless it is utilized to back up the extreme form of subjectivism. Also, how do you explain regret in your worldview? It's not rhethoric. If you have a definition of rational that is satisfactory and not merely a synonym for efficiency then present it. Not achieving the results you desired with the approach chosen or just a change of values (i.e. regret) does not contradict rationality. Why is it not rhethoric? If you ask for a definition what behavior is rational and the answer is "all" where is the point in going on to argue? Also I presented my framework, "normative rationality" wich is formalized in Utility theory. I would also accept subjective utility theory or prospect theory are frameworks bu what ever model you chose, you can always show that people violate the respective assumptions which reusults in redcued utility or increased losses for them. I find it hard to believe that people act "rational" in the sense that they have rigt not a preference ofr reducing their utility or increasing their suffering. Of course, from the subjectivist standpoint there is nothing to argue because all behavior is rational.
Well if it's normative then we're not talking about science are we? Either way I'm not disputing that people make less or more efficient decisions toward achieving (or not achieving) what they desire.
|
On February 03 2011 01:19 TrainFX wrote:
lol the theory behind social security only works if population rises constantly and gradually.
That's why America has trillions, yes, trillions, of dollars set aside and invested in the social security trust fund, set aside for the baby-boomer retirement period. If you (not specifically you, TrainFX, talking to the general 'you') think the government is completely incompetant and irresponsible, explain that. The system is NOT running on a low, zero, or negative bank balance on a daily basis. Spouting such gibberish just continues to spread such an enormously fabricated flat-out lie.
Furthermore, you still have the right to handle your finances. You're absolutely, completely, 100%, Constitutionally free to save, or not save. If you don't save, you'll live out your remaining years in poverty on nothing but social security checks. That's a choice you have. Do you WANT the choice to live out those years with literally nothing? Doesn't really seem like much of a choice to me. Similar to 'follow the rules of the road, or drive against traffic and see what happens!'. The latter choice is just downright stupid. Social security will still end up paying about 40% of your (assuming middle-class) income after retirement. They just handle 40% of it. You're free to do whatever you want with the other 60%. You can make it 0, or actually plan for your future and improve your retirement. You get pay outs from the system, just like anyone else. Do you really think you can turn that 40% into some magically awesome pile of cash so you get to buy a couple more big screen TVs for the yacht?
Yes, these systems help the stupid. But, at the same time, they help the misfortunate. How lucky do you feel? What bank do you have all of your money sitting in that is guaranteed not to fall apart within the next 2 years? Where are your completely invulnerable investments that cannot be touched by any kind of economic shift? How comfortable did you feel in early 2008?
|
On February 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:Do you really think you can turn that 40% into some magically awesome pile of cash so you get to buy a couple more big screen TVs for the yacht? Of course. The action taken would be the opitimal course of action to be taken with that money as it would be prefered to all other possible courses of action. Meanwhile giving it to SS is only preferable to well.. being thrown in jail.
|
On February 03 2011 01:17 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2011 00:32 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
Those legal structures and institutionalized guidelines are there to limit the authority of those in power, and would be done away with by them as soon as it was politically expedient. They don't increase the effectiveness of government, they keep it from eating the people alive. You're confusing an insane asylum constructed to contain a bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs with a complex machine.
Hm, now you lost me. The strcutires I talk about are not primarily there to limit government. Consider the law that forbids assault. This is an institutionalized norm which is part of a state under the rule of law. It is not meant to limit government but to enforce abstinence from violence in order to protect weaker members of society from stronger ones. Show nested quote +
Also, slave owners used to justify their actions by saying black people we're too stupid to take care of themselves, and that slavery was the only option for them. They didn't have to think in the slightest, everything was provided for them.
Hm, your point is that the maximally negative potential aspect of a system is the sole criterion to judge its worth? Another rethorical trick. This is equivalent to me stating that the absence of government equal man brutally oppressing and slaughtering his fellow neighbours while intentionally neglecting the potential benefits. Show nested quote +
I may be incredibly stupid, and I may cause myself great suffering and even death because of my ineptitude. You may be completely and utterly superior to me and capable of determining what is best for me. But my dignity and freedom is more important to me. So keep your dirty molesting thieving hands off me.
Interesting point. How about a child that wants sweets for dinner instead of a healthy diet? ow about senile or mentally handicapped people? How about pedophiles and rapists? Would you not agree that certain people must be restrained from doing living out their actual preferences? Where do you draw the line? You simply cannot argue in absolutes here. I think the answer is neither to place all powerin the hands of governments which I would never supportif you read as you can see from my previous post supporting the concept of "nudge". But the absence of all government and "everyone for himself"-mentality is equally not an option.
A law against assault isn't part of "legal structures or institutionalized guidelines". We're talking about how government is setup and how it runs. It may not be like this in your country, but in the U.S., those are very much there to limit the power and authority of the government.
"It is not meant to limit government but to enforce abstinence from violence in order to protect weaker members of society from stronger ones."
Actually its meant to protect the rights of all members of society. Your superiority complex continues to shine through. You have a world view consisting of a superior class of human beings, that includes yourself, and the pathetic rabble they oversee.
"Hm, your point is that the maximally negative potential aspect of a system is the sole criterion to judge its worth?"
I was talking about you actually, not the system. And you're already at the maximally negative so its a perfect criterion to judge your worth.
"Interesting point. How about a child that wants sweets for dinner instead of a healthy diet?"
Thats a family matter, between the child and the parent. You'd no doubt have some sort of inspector come in to determine whether the parent is raising the child correctly.
"How about pedophiles and rapists?" You are severely confused. We're discussing the management of people's lives, who are harming no one. Molester's and rapists are violating another's rights. Arresting them is to protect the rights of the individual they harmed. They're not arrested for their own good.
"But the absence of all government and "everyone for himself"-mentality is equally not an option."
You presume much about others. What they believe, and how utterly inferior they are. Where did I say that i'm an anarchist?
|
On February 03 2011 02:09 Bibdy wrote:
Do you WANT the choice to live out those years with literally nothing?
Um... yea? Is this a trick question? I'm so confused.
|
if certain taxes are voluntary then i will probably pay for it on a per item basis, depending on whether i need it or not.
for example, sales tax is almost always voluntary in the sense that you don't pay if u don't purchase that item.
|
On February 02 2011 10:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2011 08:51 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 02 2011 08:43 mcc wrote:On February 02 2011 08:25 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 02 2011 08:24 acker wrote:On February 02 2011 08:19 Treemonkeys wrote:
Yeah I'm a troll like galileo was a troll, it's what happens when you go against the established lies and ignorance. The difference between Galileo and you is the proof, not the conjecture. Then dispute what I have said. Where do US dollars come from? You are making too much fuss, so here : they are (as all other currencies in the world) printed/minted. So now that we have this trivial question answered was there a point ? printed hm? do you know the worth printed money? exactly the amount of production. even the most money is not printed at all, just numbers in a computer. thats close to zero of worth. this close to zero real worth money is lent by a private organisation to states. to banks. with the full worth it was printed on or typed in. it gets even funnier. all this money comes with full interest. like you produce a paper, write a number on it, give it to someone, and because he uses it, you already want something back. all countrys who run a debt based money system are in debt just because they use the money. thats all. if they would have a backed up money system produced by a states bank, they would not even be in debt at all. if this is not crazy... My reply had different goal then to actually state my opinion on current state of world currencies, see my reply above. As for your post, this is not news to probably anyone in the general sense. Unlike you I think that money still is worth reasonably close to what value people assign to it(to restate, I think there still is not too big of a bubble). And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being. Also I have no idea how state banks prevent debt accumulation. Most European countries have central banks unlike US who has bunch of private bankers and they are still in debt. Yes central bank seems much better solution, than US model, by mostly not being so easily manipulated and bought, but in the end they still have to listen at least somewhat to the politicians and are still human.
you are a payed agent or a vigilant kid.
considering money worth you did not read my post. money actually has no real worth. the only, reason to keep it short, money has worth is because we use it. funny thing just because of that countrys use a certain money, they have to pay back interest, money produced out of nothing the only reason is because they use it. debt based money, as it calls, produces debt, if the states would produce their own currency, they would be debt free.
also because you did not address my posts, you did not realize us and europe have private banks gathering the money. there is no, absolutely no difference.
pps.: nice try to construct so much paradoch information in one post. confuse me? sorry no.
you: And I am not talking about those creative ways you describe that bank use to "create" money, those are often worthless. But in general sense all big world currencies are still reasonably trustworthy for the time being.
me: hahaha. but no. i did not ever said that. no creativity at all. the money creation happens: just blunt out, type into computer a number, write a number on paper, both not worth anything, going into accepted currency, just because these private organisations can. and they want something back only because states use it as currency and you are forced too. it is called debt money system. the one who uses it, is in debt. basically. to someone who did not more than just printed some numbers on paper or hacked a number into a pc.
i dont gonna quote your utter shit, because i already answered in this thread. about european countries have central banks and how this doesnt work better and still have to listen to politicians...
you are a straight out joke. european central bank in fact is private. politicians have no influence, at all.
CONSIDER: there maybe people, payed to confuse you on public forums. about serious matters. this is called greenspeech, or fedspeech. or i dunno just maybe my self esteem is really low and i dont want to head on. sorry. dont wanna discuss on that matter. maybe i just should leave this thread for now. since i maybe got distracted. you decide. also there maybe people who just have no idea. at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
