The discussion revolves around the relationship between debt and money, specifically questioning whether there is more debt than money in circulation. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including economic implications, the nature of debt, and its impact on value and inflation. The conversation touches on theoretical and practical implications of debt in the economy.
Participants express multiple competing views on the relationship between debt and money, with no consensus reached on whether debt exceeds money or the implications of this situation. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing opinions on the causes and effects of debt in the economy.
Participants highlight various assumptions about the nature of money, debt, and economic principles, but these assumptions are not universally agreed upon. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the definitions and implications of debt and money supply.
WhoWee said:Every murder - murders. Every banker does not steal - there is a difference.
BilPrestonEsq said:Yeah I realize Joe Shmoe the teller at your local bank is not a murdering rapist. Is it not obvious that I am referring to someone who affects policy and not some random guy that works at the bank?
First of all, people don't have to put their money in accounts that are used for lending. They can put cash in a safe. Second, how does making money available for borrowing create inflation. You are assuming that as long as money is available, people have to borrow and spend as much of it as possible. This just isn't necessary. People can conserve spending and borrow as little as possible or nothing. If anything is responsible for inflation, it is the belief that spending more to make more is a good idea. This is what causes people to get the maximum loan they qualify for instead of buying a cheap house in a less lucrative area.BilPrestonEsq said:Ok just to be totally clear: The problem is fractional reserve banking. And a government that will bail out these banks. Banks in this system will loan out money with no fear as they will get their money back from the government(us) if they default. Fractional reserve banking creates a never ending cycle of inflation and debt.
Sorry, I guess I was just ranting back because I get irritated hearing that it's a system-problem without any acknowledgment of the various individual choices and cultural submission that comes into play. People don't HAVE to conform to social-economic culture. They do so because they want to "get ahead" "in the rat race." They choose for upward mobility instead of centering themselves on how to create the most stable economic basis for living well without creating risk and stress for themselves and others.I agree and that is one of the major problems. My list of conspiracy theories? Could you explain that please?
You can start or work at a farm for food. You can drill wells for water. If you're good at it, you can sell it to people for as fair a price as you can muster.How do you suppose we would recover if the value of a dollar dropped to 5 cents. Who is going to sell you food or water for something that has no value?
I think you're failing to attribute any responsibility to the borrower, and that is one-sided imo.What money are you multiplying? What quick profit? Quick profits are only allowed by law, that is what I am talking about changing. Anyways the ability to make quick profits would cease to exist because there is no more money. I would be worrying about where I am going to get food just like everyone else.
Money is an abstract measure of value. GDP and growth are abstract measures derived from a multitude of different sectors and applied in different ways. When houses are constructed, that is real economic growth. When food is produced and distributed, that is growth. When people develop wisdom to live more efficiently, material production services more people per unit output and that is growth. The only thing you're concerned about is money.I have thought of that, it is absolutely true, but, what good are these acheivements if the system responsible will untimately destroy everything that was created by it. The point is the growth isn't real.
If people uncritically dismiss something because it's labelled "conspiracy theory," then they're not rigorous critical thinkers in the first place, are they?Exactly that is the problem, try to convince someone of this and its a 'conspiracy theory' as soon as contradicting information is seen as a 'conspiracy theory' it loses all credibility, even if it is not a theory but factual information.
And do you expect other commodities to hyper-inflate as well? If so, why? Do you think spending is going to soon increase dramatically for some reason? I tend to think that with a shift to republicanism in government, it is more likely that we'll see fiscal conservatism result in some deflation, since that is what occurred when GWBush was president. The problem is that many people don't like that because they don't know how to keep everyone economically afloat when everyone's guarding money.I didn't put a ton of thought into that scenario but atleast there would be something of real value in that community. And if the dollar falls to a couple cents their silver would be worth 100,000 dollars(or whatever it works out to be) an ounce.
True, the more means of everyday self-sustainment people have, the less they are affected by economic crises BUT that also requires them being independent of debt, taxes, and liens that can result in loss of property.The point of that really is that they would be self sufficient, so whatever happens to the unstable currency it would have no effect on there way of life or chances of survival. Thats what I think is really necessary. Self sustaining communities not dependent on a huge and aging infrascruture or a broken banking system.
The reasons "it" doesn't change are 1) people have reasons like yours to believe it won't change 2) people see "it" as a unified thing instead of a collection of relatively distinct institutions and 3) people don't see themselves and others as directly constituting these institutions by their actions and acceptance of them. You can change people, but why do you start with the most radical foundations instead of starting by asking how people who want to payoff and/or avoid debt could achieve their goal and what this would involve on the part of various governmental and non-governmental actors?A new system has to grow from the inside out. The current system is too big to change, and the mainstream view is just too stubborn. Impossible to change in my eyes.
It has already for some and for others it would continue even if the old institutions were dismantled.If changed from the inside out, and the growth of real wealth possible, the old system would become useless and fade out over time.
Go into business in solar panels. The problem is that they've been market-positioned (i.e. priced) to the point of themselves being a form of debt that gets paid off over a certain number of years.I just want everyone to be insulated from financial meltdown and from dependence on energy companies.
Amish economics does seem amazingly independent, from my limited perspective. It would be interesting if someone was trying to adapt some of those economic practices to modern life.Amish people wouldn't even know what happened! Not that we have to all become amish! I think you know what I mean.
If you think that I am painting an unrealistically bleak future if nothing is changed than please tell me where I am going wrong.