On December 30 2012 06:38 Diminisherqc wrote: so your argument is since you ahve no solution ignore it and dont bring ti up ? .. i dont see your point behind your post ? ... lets brainstorm all together for good ideas !!!
My argument is: think of a solution, or no one should take you seriously.
A solution would necessarily be about 1000 pages long and need a strategy to pass the House, Senate, and White House. Drawing attention to a cause is a perfectly legitimate way of effecting a solution, as it might draw more thought from more people capable of proposing answers.
Unless, of course, your life ideology stops at "free markets". Then your "solution" is perfectly straightforward.
Given the track record of our current Congress... do you really think they'll "pass" anything?
On December 30 2012 06:20 WTFZerg wrote: I...what?
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
This is incredibly wrong and this myth of money always being just a means of exchange needs to be dispelled. Unfortunately I cannot go into depth once again right now but you can read some posts relating to this starting here. I can only assume that sCCrooked refers to some Marxist analysis (or an offshoot) when he talks about money as commodity and if you don't get a seizure when hearing the name Marx it's a pretty inspiring approach which I unfortunately cannot explain right now as well. But I will give you that he was not all that clear in the paragraph you bolded (no offense intended sCCrooked, it's always nice if someone with actual experience joins the discussion).
Did you just link me to a post of your own on another thread, that is also incorrect? Well, that's interesting.
Money is, and always has been, used as the means of exchange. You say in that post that most of the time you can't buy food with money? What the hell does that even mean? Of course you can buy food with money. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time I have been unable to buy food with money.
Not that I fully agree with sily, but he is right that money is more than just a medium of exchange. You can buy food with money because your money of choice is stable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so lucky.
Well, yes, but that's how all currency works, right? It only has value because we give it value. Sure, there are exceptions, like if we were to use food as a means of exchange because food always has value due to us physically requiring it.
Take, for instance, gold. Gold's practical uses in things such as electronics don't merit it being as expensive as it is. The only reason gold is like, $1600 an ounce right now is because of the value we place on it.
On December 30 2012 06:38 Diminisherqc wrote: so your argument is since you ahve no solution ignore it and dont bring ti up ? .. i dont see your point behind your post ? ... lets brainstorm all together for good ideas !!!
My argument is: think of a solution, or no one should take you seriously.
A solution would necessarily be about 1000 pages long and need a strategy to pass the House, Senate, and White House. Drawing attention to a cause is a perfectly legitimate way of effecting a solution, as it draws more attention from people capable of proposing answers.
Unless, of course, your life ideology stops at "free markets". Then your "solution" is perfectly straightforward.
Perhaps with details, a solution might be that long. But any 1000-page solution that would actually work would have a simple, easily expressed idea behind it. Anything else is called bullshit cloaked by a mass of text.
On December 30 2012 06:58 HanFuzi wrote: Perhaps with details, a solution might be that long. But any 1000-page solution that would actually work would have a simple, easily expressed idea behind it. Anything else is called bullshit cloaked by a mass of text.
Um, what?
You want details to a solution...and then you state that a "simple, easily expressed idea" is a perfectly legitimate answer? If you want "simple, easily expressed ideas", why on earth are you complaining about Occupy Wall Street?
On December 30 2012 06:58 HanFuzi wrote: Perhaps with details, a solution might be that long. But any 1000-page solution that would actually work would have a simple, easily expressed idea behind it. Anything else is called bullshit cloaked by a mass of text.
Um, what?
You want details to a solution...and then you state that a "simple, easily expressed idea" is a perfectly legitimate answer? If you want "simple, easily expressed ideas", why on earth are you complaining about Occupy Wall Street?
Because if you say "fix it" its perfectly reasonable to ask "how?" If you have no answer, you have no purpose.
On December 30 2012 07:07 HanFuzi wrote: Because if you say "fix it" its perfectly reasonable to ask "how?" If you have no answer, you have no purpose.
So you think OWS came up with no "simple, easily expressed ideas" and was exclusively ranting against the system.
Um, ok. Where did you get your information on OWS from?
On December 30 2012 06:20 WTFZerg wrote: I...what?
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
This is incredibly wrong and this myth of money always being just a means of exchange needs to be dispelled. Unfortunately I cannot go into depth once again right now but you can read some posts relating to this starting here. I can only assume that sCCrooked refers to some Marxist analysis (or an offshoot) when he talks about money as commodity and if you don't get a seizure when hearing the name Marx it's a pretty inspiring approach which I unfortunately cannot explain right now as well. But I will give you that he was not all that clear in the paragraph you bolded (no offense intended sCCrooked, it's always nice if someone with actual experience joins the discussion).
Did you just link me to a post of your own on another thread, that is also incorrect? Well, that's interesting.
Money is, and always has been, used as the means of exchange. You say in that post that most of the time you can't buy food with money? What the hell does that even mean? Of course you can buy food with money. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time I have been unable to buy food with money.
Not that I fully agree with sily, but he is right that money is more than just a medium of exchange. You can buy food with money because your money of choice is stable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so lucky.
Well, yes, but that's how all currency works, right? It only has value because we give it value. Sure, there are exceptions, like if we were to use food as a means of exchange because food always has value due to us physically requiring it.
Take, for instance, gold. Gold's practical uses in things such as electronics don't merit it being as expensive as it is. The only reason gold is like, $1600 an ounce right now is because of the value we place on it.
Indeed, money in modern society has a value assigned to it. But it also has utility because it is a product that can purchase other goods (among many, many other uses for money). You can rely on a stable currency to do that, but not an unstable one, so some currencies have more utility than others.
On December 30 2012 07:07 HanFuzi wrote: Because if you say "fix it" its perfectly reasonable to ask "how?" If you have no answer, you have no purpose.
So you think OWS came up with no "simple, easily expressed ideas" and was exclusively ranting against the system.
Um, ok. Where did you get your information on OWS from?
On December 30 2012 06:20 WTFZerg wrote: I...what?
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
This is incredibly wrong and this myth of money always being just a means of exchange needs to be dispelled. Unfortunately I cannot go into depth once again right now but you can read some posts relating to this starting here. I can only assume that sCCrooked refers to some Marxist analysis (or an offshoot) when he talks about money as commodity and if you don't get a seizure when hearing the name Marx it's a pretty inspiring approach which I unfortunately cannot explain right now as well. But I will give you that he was not all that clear in the paragraph you bolded (no offense intended sCCrooked, it's always nice if someone with actual experience joins the discussion).
Did you just link me to a post of your own on another thread, that is also incorrect? Well, that's interesting.
Money is, and always has been, used as the means of exchange. You say in that post that most of the time you can't buy food with money? What the hell does that even mean? Of course you can buy food with money. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time I have been unable to buy food with money.
Not that I fully agree with sily, but he is right that money is more than just a medium of exchange. You can buy food with money because your money of choice is stable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so lucky.
Well, yes, but that's how all currency works, right? It only has value because we give it value. Sure, there are exceptions, like if we were to use food as a means of exchange because food always has value due to us physically requiring it.
Take, for instance, gold. Gold's practical uses in things such as electronics don't merit it being as expensive as it is. The only reason gold is like, $1600 an ounce right now is because of the value we place on it.
Indeed, money in modern society has a value assigned to it. But it also has utility because it is a product that can purchase other goods (among many, many other uses for money). You can rely on a stable currency to do that, but not an unstable one, so some currencies have more utility than others.
On December 30 2012 06:20 WTFZerg wrote: I...what?
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
This is incredibly wrong and this myth of money always being just a means of exchange needs to be dispelled. Unfortunately I cannot go into depth once again right now but you can read some posts relating to this starting here. I can only assume that sCCrooked refers to some Marxist analysis (or an offshoot) when he talks about money as commodity and if you don't get a seizure when hearing the name Marx it's a pretty inspiring approach which I unfortunately cannot explain right now as well. But I will give you that he was not all that clear in the paragraph you bolded (no offense intended sCCrooked, it's always nice if someone with actual experience joins the discussion).
Did you just link me to a post of your own on another thread, that is also incorrect? Well, that's interesting.
Money is, and always has been, used as the means of exchange. You say in that post that most of the time you can't buy food with money? What the hell does that even mean? Of course you can buy food with money. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time I have been unable to buy food with money.
Not that I fully agree with sily, but he is right that money is more than just a medium of exchange. You can buy food with money because your money of choice is stable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so lucky.
Well, yes, but that's how all currency works, right? It only has value because we give it value. Sure, there are exceptions, like if we were to use food as a means of exchange because food always has value due to us physically requiring it.
Take, for instance, gold. Gold's practical uses in things such as electronics don't merit it being as expensive as it is. The only reason gold is like, $1600 an ounce right now is because of the value we place on it.
As long as there are more than one independent interchangeable currency in the world, the currencies will be a commodity in some form. If I can buy one currency at a low value and sell it at a high value I can make economic gain on the product.
Using food as currency is far far too volatile since almost any kind of food goes bad over time. A bad production cycle because of uncontrollable variables and the economy is in ruins! Even gold has an extraction you need to have control over to have a working currency! When that is said, most metals are somewhat valuable backup currencies, should some real currencies go into devaluation.
On December 30 2012 06:20 WTFZerg wrote: I...what?
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
This is incredibly wrong and this myth of money always being just a means of exchange needs to be dispelled. Unfortunately I cannot go into depth once again right now but you can read some posts relating to this starting here. I can only assume that sCCrooked refers to some Marxist analysis (or an offshoot) when he talks about money as commodity and if you don't get a seizure when hearing the name Marx it's a pretty inspiring approach which I unfortunately cannot explain right now as well. But I will give you that he was not all that clear in the paragraph you bolded (no offense intended sCCrooked, it's always nice if someone with actual experience joins the discussion).
Did you just link me to a post of your own on another thread, that is also incorrect? Well, that's interesting.
Money is, and always has been, used as the means of exchange. You say in that post that most of the time you can't buy food with money? What the hell does that even mean? Of course you can buy food with money. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any time I have been unable to buy food with money.
Not that I fully agree with sily, but he is right that money is more than just a medium of exchange. You can buy food with money because your money of choice is stable. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be so lucky.
Well, yes, but that's how all currency works, right? It only has value because we give it value. Sure, there are exceptions, like if we were to use food as a means of exchange because food always has value due to us physically requiring it.
Take, for instance, gold. Gold's practical uses in things such as electronics don't merit it being as expensive as it is. The only reason gold is like, $1600 an ounce right now is because of the value we place on it.
As long as there are more than one independent interchangeable currency in the world, the currencies will be a commodity in some form. If I can buy one currency at a low value and sell it at a high value I can make economic gain on the product.
Using food as currency is far far too volatile since almost any kind of food goes bad over time. A bad production cycle because of uncontrollable variables and the economy is in ruins! Even gold has an extraction you need to have control over to have a working currency! When that is said, most metals are somewhat valuable backup currencies, should some real currencies go into devaluation.
Okay, I guess I failed to take into consideration currency trading, so that is a good point.
And I was not actually advocating using food as a form of currency because that's an awful idea.
On December 30 2012 05:44 micronesia wrote: I never understood the concept of buying/selling debt (aside from mafia style loan sharks). If company A lends me money, and later they want to sell the debt to company B, I don't see how they can do that without my authorization. Otherwise, from my perspective I still owe the money to company A regardless of what private shenanigans company A and company B had.
In this case though, the ability to sell debt seems to be helping the borrower.
Most loans, leases and financing agreements have such provisions in them to sell and transfer debts to third parties.
However, you probably want to know why, more than how.
Simply the reasoning is that when a debt is carried by a company, it is a red number - a negative. For a large financial institution to borrow money from another bank or a national bank, they need a certain amount of capital or black numbers, and a low amount of red numbers. So they sell and get rid of red numbers, even if at a loss, so they are not carrying debt loads. It sounds like its the same thing, having a debt, and writing off a debt and taking a loss - but the actual loss is less damaging than carrying a ton of on going debts.
Then there is the staffing needed to operate a collections dept. Some firms are much better equipped for collections than large firms that just want to borrow money, then lend that money at a higher rate, and do very little to collect it and their profits (low risk lending).
I'm leaving this page, the waiting is interminable. Take your question to PM if you're really interested in this, HanFuzi. If you're just voicing a talking point, feel free to post it here.
This is the documentary I mentioned a page ago in a very lengthy post apparently none of the people asking for my response have read or at least responded to (thus letting me know it was read).
As for a solution, I have heard some very interesting ideas:
- Remove all physical money. (The idea is a society only relying on credit cards and digital money. The result would be a lot of money saved for the government and banks.) - Reform all copyright to lifetime + 20 years + costly registration for 5 more years at the end of the existing period (Is more flexible than current copyright and will result in an increase in public domain which makes a demand for innovation on the internet and therefore increases the values in USA and europe since they are by far the frontrunners in that field!) - Make stong arm control of financial companies through liquidity simulations and demands (This one is already somewhat about to become law in the EURO-zone) - Make economic separation of investment and primary business for banks (This is logical and reduces risks in the banking business by huge amounts because financial malinvestment is not a possible! Has to be global though, which makes it almost impossible.) - Taxation or higher taxation on financial gains + Turbin taxation (Will cool the financial investment and thus decrease the incentive to create problematic derivatives. This is obviously only relevant in an economic over-heating period and it is very likely to be problematic for the market if it ain't global!) - Enforce anticompetitive legislation (USA and europe both have the legislation but especially USA is not sufficiently enforcing it. In the end the anticompetitive practices skyrockets their profit and makes them too big to fail.) - Buy bad loans and forgive them instead of pursuing it (Decrease the amount of bad debt in the financial system and free some people from their burden. The banks take the hit here, but also get something from debt they likely would have gotten no payment on otherwise.)
Most of those have been proposed by reasonable people with more or less ties to OWS.
Money has a monopoly? I don't even understand what that means. Money is something you exchange for goods and services, and it has always been that way. Whether it be seashells or gold bullion or paper money, it's the same concept.
Your definition of money is very basic. Perhaps I should expand upon this a bit and see if it clears things up a bit. What do we know about products business-wise?
-All Products have a dedicated manufacturer -All Products have an intended market -All Products are pushed to that market in every conceivable way to make it more valuable to peoples' lives -All Products are trademarked and counterfeiting is considered criminal
Now what can we draw between those and money?
-Money has a dedicated manufacturer. It is NOT your governments. Banks owned by the F.R. make it. -Money has an intended market. All people on Earth. -Money is pushed into your lives and governs it. It determines what you can eat or even if you can eat. It determines what kind of dwelling you can live in. It determines if you have power, water, plumbing, clothing and any sort of entertainment. Everyone is chasing the currency of their country and they even manipulated "music" so all you here is "hoes and currency signs" type of music. -Money is trademarked and counterfeiting it is one of the harshest criminal acts using the current "justice" system.
Money is in fact a registered and trademarked product. Money just happens to be the one thing that's good for trading for anything.
Yo sCCrooked, are you another one of those Zeitgeist protesters by any chance? You sound and talk exactly like one
I am vehemently against the Zeitgeist idea since it sounds like a huge scam system that doesn't address real issues we face. However I have found that most people who possess either little or no education on money or non-manipulated history tend to lump Zeitgeist with the occupy movement type of message for monetary reform.
There is one big thing that should've set you off if you really knew what Zeitgeist was or what Occupy was about. That thing is "Monetary Reform". If I were a Zeitgeister, I'd say it needs to be done away with. Money allows goods and services to pass more smoothly since it can be used for ANYTHING. Its the "universal gift card" so to speak.
"Monetary Reform" means you still keep a monetary system. We still need it as things are right now. However having external companies creating money without us having any say has inflated to the point where there's so much money being thrown around at the top and next to nothing at the bottom. Anyone familiar with what America is facing with the "fiscal cliff" should know that this sort of BS is because we are under the rule of the Federal Reserve.
Money has only been what you could consider a manufactured good since we left the gold standard. Money exists to simplify the basis of trade: the coincidence of wants.
If money did not exist, trading becomes much more difficult. You have a car that I want? I have to have something that you want, or something that is of greater value than the car that you can then trade for something that you want. Why does it need to be of greater value? Because then you have to put in the effort of trading for something else instead of it being directly what you wanted.
On December 30 2012 08:06 radiatoren wrote: As for a solution, I have heard some very interesting ideas:
- Remove all physical money. (The idea is a society only relying on credit cards and digital money. The result would be a lot of money saved for the government and banks.) - Reform all copyright to lifetime + 20 years + costly registration for 5 more years at the end of the existing period (Is more flexible than current copyright and will result in an increase in public domain which makes a demand for innovation on the internet and therefore increases the values in USA and europe since they are by far the frontrunners in that field!) - Make stong arm control of financial companies through liquidity simulations and demands (This one is already somewhat about to become law in the EURO-zone) - Make economic separation of investment and primary business for banks (This is logical and reduces risks in the banking business by huge amounts because financial malinvestment is not a possible! Has to be global though, which makes it almost impossible.) - Taxation or higher taxation on financial gains + Turbin taxation (Will cool the financial investment and thus decrease the incentive to create problematic derivatives. This is obviously only relevant in an economic over-heating period and it is very likely to be problematic for the market if it ain't global!) - Enforce anticompetitive legislation (USA and europe both have the legislation but especially USA is not sufficiently enforcing it. In the end the anticompetitive practices skyrockets their profit and makes them too big to fail.) - Buy bad loans and forgive them instead of pursuing it (Decrease the amount of bad debt in the financial system and free some people from their burden. The banks take the hit here, but also get something from debt they likely would have gotten no payment on otherwise.)
Most of those have been proposed by reasonable people with more or less ties to OWS.
What does removing physical money do? How then are interest rates managed? Exchange rates? What do you mean by strong arm control of financial companies? Also, you are aware that banks must keep a reserve? You are also aware that their reserves are higher than ever before in history? How do you separate investment from primary business? What do you mean here? The government already increases taxes when the market is booming (see: Clinton raised taxes during the internet boom) How far do you enforce anticompetition law but still promote business to grow?
EPT
