Liberal Forum

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 12:50 am » wrote: Bad move, friend. Do not ask me to defend a system I don't agree with. I would gradually do away with money altogether.

I took issue with your criticism because your mortars are launched in the wrong direction - it is interest and not "printing money" that you ought to concern yourself with. Fiat money and commodity money both serve the same purpose - as media of exchange and storage of value. The only difference is fiat money is not intrinsically valuable and requires the users' faith in, or forced compliance by, the issuer (usually a political entity, like the US state).

Which brings me to a couple of points, and why the "out of thin air" phrasing is silly: what kind of currency in circulation isn't "created out of thin air?" If a country on the gold and silver standard mines gold and silver deposits, which results in inflation, how is that any different from a central bank printing money?

I know you jest about conjobs and fake libertarians like AteWedge sucking on banker cock, but you can't use that line on me.

Now let's examine your claim - counterfeiting. Suppose the total amount of money in circulation is X, and the total amount of goods and services produced is Y. The base case ratio is X/Y. One unit of X buys one unit of Y.

Using your logic, if a counterfeit operation or central bank (in your view, those 2 are no different) prints money and increases X by 20%, we now have 1.2X/Y. Each unit of X is devalued by 17% (1 / 1.2). What really happens is the money adjusts accordingly so that 1.2 X buys 1 Y, and each unit of X only purchases 83% of what it used to buy.

The value is taken from the existing pool of money and re-distributed to adjust for parity for the added money. In the real world, this "inflation" hurts those who hold/are lending out money, and helps those who owe money.

Let's take the inverse case - What if a currency deflates? Suppose a central bank takes 50% of a currency out of the money supply. We now have 0.5X/Y.

Is that "destroying money out of thin air?"

Talk about brain dead concepts you win hands down. Eliminating money is one of the stupidest concepts possible. Money was created for a reason. The alternative is barter. Doing that requires that two people find each other with what each wants and the other is willing to give. Then the relative value might be different enough to require other items be added to the exchange. Money was created to make that problem go away.. You far leftwing progressive moonbats are extremely stupid if you are an example of their intelligence. Ignorance is curable but stupidity like yours is permanent!!!

indago » 08 Nov 2017 6:29 am » wrote: So, what is "monetary realistic m"?

You are assuming a fact not in evidence. That this fool has real intelligence and is able to make reasonable thoughts in a discussion. Anyone who thinks money should be done away with has absolutely no concept of how things worked before money. Barter is extremely complicated because of the importance of different things to different people. Therefore the relative value is always fluctuating based on each person's desires for the object. Money does away with that issue.

Sgt Bilko » 08 Nov 2017 9:21 am » wrote: You are assuming a fact not in evidence. That this fool has real intelligence and is able to make reasonable thoughts in a discussion. Anyone who thinks money should be done away with has absolutely no concept of how things worked before money. Barter is extremely complicated because of the importance of different things to different people. Therefore the relative value is always fluctuating based on each person's desires for the object. Money does away with that issue.

You're a **** idiot.....money doesn't do away with the "subjectivity" of value...

Blackvegetable » 08 Nov 2017 11:38 am » wrote: You're a **** idiot.....money doesn't do away with the "subjectivity" of value...

I was referring to the value of money ****. Do you bother to think before posting idiocy like this. The subjective value is the value placed on an item by the seller and the buyer. If the seller places the value too high it might not sell. The seller wants the most money he can get while the buyer wants to pay the least. If no agreement then no sale. There has to be agreement between the seller and the buyer. Classic capitalism at work

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 12:50 am » wrote:
Bad move, friend. Do not ask me to defend a system I don't agree with. I would gradually do away with money altogether.

I took issue with your criticism because your mortars are launched in the wrong direction - it is interest and not "printing money" that you ought to concern yourself with. Fiat money and commodity money both serve the same purpose - as media of exchange and storage of value. The only difference is fiat money is not intrinsically valuable and requires the users' faith in, or forced compliance by, the issuer (usually a political entity, like the US state)

If a nation, exercising the authority of its citizens, issues currency, that currency represents the value of that nation's resources and production.

If a PRIVATE bank prints those same dollars, that represents the theft of that nation's resources and productivity.

See that?

One represents the VALUE and the other represents the THEFT.

That's a big old honking **** difference.

Y'see, a PRIVATE bank having the franchise to print money OUT OF THIN AIR (as opposed to it being an expression of value), then that private bank can PURCHASE, with "money" printed out of thin air, the goods and services and resources of the host nation upon which it is a parasite.

Equating what a PRIVATE bank does with what a government, on the authority of its people, does, is acting as an agent of the Big Lie that fed notes and such are.

Cannonpointer » 08 Nov 2017 10:17 pm » wrote:If a nation, exercising the authority of its citizens, issues currency, that currency represents the value of that nation's resources and production.

If a PRIVATE bank prints those same dollars, that represents the theft of that nation's resources and productivity.

See that?

One represents the VALUE and the other represents the THEFT.

That's a big old honking **** difference.

Y'see, a PRIVATE bank having the franchise to print money OUT OF THIN AIR (as opposed to it being an expression of value), then that private bank can PURCHASE, with "money" printed out of thin air, the goods and services and resources of the host nation upon which it is a parasite.

Equating what a PRIVATE bank does with what a government, on the authority of its people, does, is acting as an agent of the Big Lie that fed notes and such are.

Cannon, you just proved my point. A PRIVATE bank does not create money out of thin air - it creates money based on THEFT (or what I referred to as "future liabilities" of wage earners and business profits in my earlier post) of resources from the existing pool.

A parasite does not obtain value from nothing ("thin air"), it obtains value from ITS HOST. This has been my stance all along.

Nothing in life comes "from nothing." Everything comes from something.

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 10:21 pm » wrote: Cannon, you just proved my point. A PRIVATE bank does not create money out of thin air - it creates money based on THEFT (or what I referred to as "future liabilities" of wage earners and business profits in my earlier post) of resources from the existing pool.

A parasite does not obtain value from nothing ("thin air"), it obtains value from ITS HOST. This has been my stance all along.

Nothing in life comes "from nothing." Everything comes from something.

But governments are not stealing when they print currency - which is precisely why every government we attack is among those who refuse to allow the parasites to run a central bank scam on their nation. We attack them on behalf of the parasites.

You need to DISTINGUISH between a private bank doing it TO a nation's citizens, and a government doing it FOR their citizens. Equating them serves fiat currency.

----
http://www.appropriate-economics.org/eb ... change.htm

Cannonpointer » 08 Nov 2017 10:25 pm » wrote:But governments are not stealing when they print currency - which is precisely why every government we attack is among those who refuse to allow the parasites to run a central bank scam on their nation. We attack them on behalf of the parasites.

You need to DISTINGUISH between a private bank doing it TO a nation's citizens, and a government doing it FOR their citizens. Equating them serves fiat currency.

Like I said in a previous post, I would do away with money altogether, albeit gradually. It is an archaism that will one day serve no use, other than to shackle mankind to an obsolete system of profiteering and exploitation.

A public bank that prints money as a utility, and not a for-profit enterprise, would no longer route vast sums to the bankers' pockets. This is an argument with merit, and one fully supported by economist Michael Hudson (someone whose works I respect).

That being said, I maintain the core of my refutation in 2 parts (and won't let you get away with these):

1) A private bank does not "print money out of thin air."

2) The "money in circulation" to "total value" ratio is always adjusted in the long run by supply-and-demand, regardless of which entity does the "money printing."

This means, in the real world, regardless of the intentions of the power in charge of currency issuing, some groups are going to benefit and others won't, depending on the change in ratio.

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 10:42 pm » wrote: Like I said in a previous post, I would do away with money altogether, albeit gradually. It is an archaism that will one day serve no use, other than to shackle mankind to an obsolete system of profiteering and exploitation.

A public bank that prints money as a utility, and not a for-profit enterprise, would no longer route vast sums to the bankers' pockets. This is an argument with merit.

That being said, I maintain the core of my argument in 2 parts (and won't let you get away with these):

1) A private bank does not "print money out of thin air."

2) The "money in circulation" to "total value" ratio is always adjusted in the long run by supply-and-demand, regardless of which entity does the "money printing."

This means, in the real world, regardless of the intentions of the power in charge of currency issuing, some groups are going to benefit and others won't, depending on the change in ratio.

"I would do away with money altogether"

"A public bank that prints money as a utility"

Rather fighting against each other...

indago » 08 Nov 2017 10:49 pm » wrote:
"I would do away with money altogether"

"A public bank that prints money as a utility"

Rather fighting against each other...

Doing away with money altogether = A Hail Mary

Public bank that acts as a utility = A Field Goal

indago » 08 Nov 2017 10:33 pm » wrote:----
http://www.appropriate-economics.org/eb ... change.htm

The use of "money" as a medium of exchange...

"Let's assume that Mr. B is a barber who cuts Mr. A's hair. Mr. A has brought along a nice glass of self-made strawberry jam which he wanted to give in exchange. The barber Mr. B, however, doesn't like strawberry jam and refuses to take it. Thus the direct exchange fails, it remains open.

...Mr. A confirms on a paper that Mr. B had cut his hair which is as much worth as a nice glass of strawberry jam. He promises to hand the strawberry jam over to the bringer of this paper which means to fulfill his service in return. Mr. B agrees and takes the paper instead of the service in return. He then goes to the cheese vendor Mrs. C and asks her to give him as much cheese as he can ask for a haircut or a glass of strawberry jam. Mrs. C takes the paper but doesn't like strawberry jam either. She goes to the wine dealer Mr. D and gets a bottle of wine. Mr. D, too, isn't fond of marmelade and gives the voucher-IOU to Mr. E for repairing his washing machine. In this way the paper runs from hand to hand until it finally reaches Mrs. H who is in desperate need of strawberry jam. She goes to Mr. A and asks for the glass of jam in return for sewing Mr. G's coat. Thus, the circle closes in the end, which, of course, could have been much wider until Mr. Q or Mr. Z or even further. There are no restrictions as to the size of this circle."

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 10:53 pm » wrote: Doing away with money altogether = A Hail Mary

Public bank that acts as a utility = A Field Goal

The point of "money" is to facilitate exchange...

indago » 09 Nov 2017 5:16 am » wrote:
The point of "money" is to facilitate exchange...

And the point of printing money without true growth is to cover up mismanagement and corruption.

Dantev2 » 08 Nov 2017 10:42 pm » wrote:
Like I said in a previous post, I would do away with money altogether, albeit gradually. It is an archaism that will one day serve no use, other than to shackle mankind to an obsolete system of profiteering and exploitation.

A public bank that prints money as a utility, and not a for-profit enterprise, would no longer route vast sums to the bankers' pockets. This is an argument with merit, and one fully supported by economist Michael Hudson (someone whose works I respect).

That being said, I maintain the core of my refutation in 2 parts (and won't let you get away with these):

1) A private bank does not "print money out of thin air."

2) The "money in circulation" to "total value" ratio is always adjusted in the long run by supply-and-demand, regardless of which entity does the "money printing."

This means, in the real world, regardless of the intentions of the power in charge of currency issuing, some groups are going to benefit and others won't, depending on the change in ratio.

And I won't let YOU get away with equating a private bank to a public one, through irrelevant comparisons of minutia.

You left out that most bankers in either system will have two legs and will like eggs at breakfast - yet ANOTHER similarity between a publicly owned bank and a privately owned one.

As to your first point, quantitative easing says you're wrong. As to your second point, what happens in the "long run" (theft by fiat issuance) is irrelevant to the fact that QE was a money out of thin air proposition - money which was never even printed. Just issued and held. Out of thin air.

indago » 08 Nov 2017 6:29 am » wrote:
So, what is "monetary realism"?

...i hope this helps: a 'monetary realist' is able to precisely/accurately answer questions such as, 'what is it we use as money?' who creates 'money' and how is it created?' etc..

...a monetary realist can describe/'paint' an objective picture of money that is analogous to an andrew wyeth or rembrandt physical painting.....whereas non-monetary realists, like the republican-radio-level stinky squirmy dildoes who dominate at this forum, 'paint money' like jackson pollock...displaying little talent/knowledge....always vague and very subjective...

...btw, pollock's paintings looked 'like the mess he left on the floor'...

Sgt Bilko » 08 Nov 2017 9:04 am » wrote:
Talk about brain dead concepts you win hands down. Eliminating money is one of the stupidest concepts possible. Money was created for a reason. The alternative is barter. Doing that requires that two people find each other with what each wants and the other is willing to give. Then the relative value might be different enough to require other items be added to the exchange. Money was created to make that problem go away.. You far leftwing progressive moonbats are extremely stupid if you are an example of their intelligence. Ignorance is curable but stupidity like yours is permanent!!!

...i'm not talking about 'eliminating money,' you f@cking republican-radio-level creep!....

....'money' is the great scoreboard of life...is it too much to ask for an honest, transparent system of money issuance/creation such that everyone is treated equally? [HINT FOR REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS: OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF MONEY ISSUANCE/MONEY CREATION IS RIGGED TO FAVOR A COTERIE OF BANKSTERS, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE 'MONETARY HALLUCINATORS' NOT MONETARY REALISTS!...

...little do you stoooopid republicrat **** know but your holes are frequently working about illion$ and you truly don't even know what one i$!

indago » 09 Nov 2017 5:16 am » wrote:
The point of "money" is to facilitate exchange...

...that's an interesting theory, but not really what this thread is about...

btw, since you brought it up...here's the standard pabulum as to 'the four functions of money': http://www.preservearticles.com/2011041 ... money.html

(i) Money as a Unit of Value:
Money measures the value of various goods and services which are produced in an economy. In other words, money works as unit of value or standard of value. In barter economy it was very difficult to decide as to how much volume of goods should be given in exchange of a given quantity of a commodity.
Money, by performing the function of common measure of value, has saved the society from this difficulty. Now the value of various goods and services are expressed in terms of money such as Rs. 10 per metre, Rs. 8/- per kilogram etc. In this way, money works as common measure of value by expressing exchange value of all goods and services in money in the exchange market. By working as a unit of value, money has facilitated modern business and trade.
(ii) Medium of Exchange:
Right from the beginning, money has been performing an important function as medium of exchange in the society. Money facilitates transactions of goods and service as a medium of exchange. Producers sell their goods to the wholesalers in exchange of money. Wholesalers sell the same goods to the consumers in exchange of money.
In the same way, all sections of society sell their services in exchange of money and with that buy goods and services which they need. Money, working as medium of exchange, has eliminated inconvenience which was faced in barter transactions. However, money can operate as medium of exchange only when it is generally accepted in that role. Bank money can be treated as money simply on the basis of their general acceptability for they are highly useful.
(iii) Standard of Deferred Payments:
Modem economic setup is based on credit and credit is paid in the form of money only. In reality the significance of credit has increased so much that it will not be improper to call it as the foundation stone of modem economic progress. Money, besides being the basis of current transactions, is also the basis of deferred payments. Only money is such a commodity in whose form accounts of deferred payments can be maintained in such a way so that both creditors and debtors do not stand to lose.
(iv) Store of Value:
It was virtually impossible to store surplus value under barter economy; the discovery of money has removed this difficulty. With the help of money, people can store surplus pur­chasing power and use it whenever they want. Saving in money is not only secure but its possibility of being destroyed is very less. Besides, it can be used whenever need be. By facilitating accumulation of money, money has become the only basis of promoting capital formation and modern production tech­nique and corporate business facilitated there from.

peepee » 11 Nov 2017 7:46 am » wrote: ...i hope this helps: a 'monetary realist' is able to precisely/accurately answer questions such as, 'what is it we use as money?' who creates 'money' and how is it created?' etc..

...a monetary realist can describe/'paint' an objective picture of money that is analogous to an andrew wyeth or rembrandt physical painting.....whereas non-monetary realists, like the republican-radio-level stinky squirmy dildoes who dominate at this forum, 'paint money' like jackson pollock...displaying little talent/knowledge....always vague and very subjective...

...btw, pollock's paintings looked 'like the mess he left on the floor'...

I didn't ask what a monetary realist was, I asked: "what is "monetary realism"?"

peepee » 11 Nov 2017 8:20 am » wrote:

...that's an interesting theory, but not really what this thread is about...

btw, since you brought it up...here's the standard pabulum as to 'the four functions of money': http://www.preservearticles.com/2011041 ... money.html

(i) Money as a Unit of Value:
Money measures the value of various goods and services which are produced in an economy. In other words, money works as unit of value or standard of value. In barter economy it was very difficult to decide as to how much volume of goods should be given in exchange of a given quantity of a commodity.
Money, by performing the function of common measure of value, has saved the society from this difficulty. Now the value of various goods and services are expressed in terms of money such as Rs. 10 per metre, Rs. 8/- per kilogram etc. In this way, money works as common measure of value by expressing exchange value of all goods and services in money in the exchange market. By working as a unit of value, money has facilitated modern business and trade.
(ii) Medium of Exchange:
Right from the beginning, money has been performing an important function as medium of exchange in the society. Money facilitates transactions of goods and service as a medium of exchange. Producers sell their goods to the wholesalers in exchange of money. Wholesalers sell the same goods to the consumers in exchange of money.
In the same way, all sections of society sell their services in exchange of money and with that buy goods and services which they need. Money, working as medium of exchange, has eliminated inconvenience which was faced in barter transactions. However, money can operate as medium of exchange only when it is generally accepted in that role. Bank money can be treated as money simply on the basis of their general acceptability for they are highly useful.
(iii) Standard of Deferred Payments:
Modem economic setup is based on credit and credit is paid in the form of money only. In reality the significance of credit has increased so much that it will not be improper to call it as the foundation stone of modem economic progress. Money, besides being the basis of current transactions, is also the basis of deferred payments. Only money is such a commodity in whose form accounts of deferred payments can be maintained in such a way so that both creditors and debtors do not stand to lose.
(iv) Store of Value:
It was virtually impossible to store surplus value under barter economy; the discovery of money has removed this difficulty. With the help of money, people can store surplus pur­chasing power and use it whenever they want. Saving in money is not only secure but its possibility of being destroyed is very less. Besides, it can be used whenever need be. By facilitating accumulation of money, money has become the only basis of promoting capital formation and modern production tech­nique and corporate business facilitated there from.

The statement that I made, being: "The point of "money" is to facilitate exchange...", was in response to a declaration of getting rid of "money" altogether...