Again, your diligence in breaking out quotes for responses is excellent. My reply will not be anywhere near as good in this regard.

You'll have to introduce me to these people some day, they sound nice (The people I meet usually want currency above all else.)

Maybe, but doubtful. People enjoy exchanging money for goods and services because they want those goods and services, not so much having money for its own sake. Some people do want to hold money for its own sake, of course, but I would be willing to bet that if you offered someone a car versus the cash value of a car with the stipulation that they would never be allowed to invest or spend that cash on anything, ever, most would take the car. Money you cannot spend isn't worth the materials it's made of.

It can't be helped. Take for example "negative interest rates", I can't use that term because it refers to a different concept, but twice people have mistaken it with what I was trying to explain. Some economic terms/concepts are "deliberately" confusing. If you can't take my word on it, then you'll have to study to see for yourself. I'm trying to keep the language as simple as possible but sometimes I have to use an economic term.

Economic terms already have meanings, and I don't know of any that are "deliberately" confusing, though many are very very specific. People may be less confused if you used those terms to mean what they actually are used to indicate, but perhaps not. Economics is a badly jargon-laden field. I'm sympathetic to the limits of language-- I remember reading Heidegger and slogging through historicality, historicity, and historiocity.

As for studying for myself, I've been avoiding saying it here because it's not strictly relevant, but I have studied a fair amount of economics and thought about the topic quite a bit. More, I would venture to guess, than you have. That doesn't have any real bearing on one of us being more or less correct than the other. But you might consider that, whatever else is going on here, you are not talking over my head.

You don't have to believe me (besides, it's a little late to put those people on trial, isn't it?). But I won't provide a mini-history lecture. You are aware slavery existed legally (immorally) for some time, right?

...

Slavery still exists today in various parts of the world (I'm not exaggerating). I would never agree to slavery. Since you like quotes, you might like this one, in words of MLK: "It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless." I feel the same way about legislating insatiable greed.

It seems that I have been unclear. I'm not asking you for quotations because if you offer a comment from the right person I will be totally convinced, or because I want to judge the person quoted, but because you have been light on support for your assertions. If a quote came from Donald Trump I may or may not be more or less inclined to believe what his quote states, but at least I could conceivably look up more about why he believes that statement to be true. That you have presented a specific assertion (that the current monetary system is a similar alternative to slavery), attributed to no one and supported by no offered writings or theories is worth nothing. Some people feel that work is slavery-- is that 7 word sentence enough to prove its meaning beyond all question or debate?

Like Tony Robbins? Just because I explain or point out something, doesn't mean people are going to be motivated to change or fix it. There is a lot of built-in resistance to change in some people, even when they know the alternative is better for them - I can't explain that. Some people only genuinely want to change when they've hit rock bottom. I would rather society/the economy not hit rock bottom (as well as not continue to limit themselves - there is a lot of unnecessary stagnation).

Of course pointing things out won't necessarily mean that those things are acted upon. But you're getting ahead of yourself here. The problem isn't that I'm not motivated to understand what you're saying. I think that anyone reading this thread would conclude that I have made a strong effort to understand exactly what you mean. The problem is that I think that you are incorrect in your understanding of the monetary system and that your subsequent analyses are flawed because they are based on that incorrect understanding. Maybe what you've posted here is simply an incomplete display of what you know-- just as one example, the interest paid on Treasury bills, notes, and bonds should undercut your views on "money creation" by private banks; knowing how this fits into your view might make me far more receptive to what you're saying. But maybe not.

What you have offered in support of your position being correct are two things: 1. The observation that you, yourself, believe your position fervently and 2. The observation that you, yourself, believe your position honestly. These are tautological as argumentation and do not persuade me that you are accurate in your assessments. Between my current understanding and the alternative you are presenting there is no question that I will continue to disagree with you. Additional evidence and arguments may well sway me but at this point I think that it is unlikely you will be willing and/or able to provide those. Even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that your conclusion is 100% correct I would still say that what you have posted thus far is insufficient to demonstrate that conclusion.

Like the closed-minded advisers you complained about earlier, you seem absolutely certain that you already know everything that there is to know and that the only possible way for someone to disagree with you is for that person to be wrong. What's more, you seem persuaded that you are one of the select few whose surpassing intellect and study has given you access to the Big Secret; that your conclusion is obvious and simple yet is not understood by the vast majority of people; and that those people that disagree only do so through some combination of foolishness, laziness, or corruption. Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?

I would be willing to bet that if you offered someone a car versus the cash value of a car with the stipulation that they would never be allowed to invest or spend that cash on anything, ever, most would take the car. Money you cannot spend isn't worth the materials it's made of.

You are choosing the most extreme and unlikely example.
You are arguing, just to argue.

you are not talking over my head.

So, you do know what I'm talking about.
Why are you pretending not to?

Slavery

I'm sorry to tell you that the Central Bank concept was meant as a way to keep involuntary servitude.
But why are you now trying to convince me it was anything other than that?
If you don't believe me, that's fine, I'm only concerned with the future.

But you're getting ahead of yourself here.

No, I'm not getting ahead of myself. I thought the economy was the way it was supposed to be, for a very long time. I didn't question it either, for a very long time.

The observation that you, yourself, believe your position fervently

Stop treating economics like a religion.

and 2.

So, you are arguing just to argue.
That's fine.
Like I said; after a while I won't care anymore either. It's not my responsibility to "save the world".
Let countries go broke.
Let unemployment continue to rise.
It's unnecessary, but if that's what the people want...

that your conclusion is 100% correct I would still say that what you have posted thus far is insufficient to demonstrate that conclusion.

You have been given enough to confirm or deny the concept, yet I can tell you're not willing to theorize it.

What's more, you seem persuaded that you are one of the select few whose surpassing intellect and study has given you access to the Big Secret

I am not the only one who has had this epiphany. And it is no big secret.

Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?

Yep.

Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?

Yep.

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.

You are choosing the most extreme and unlikely example.

You are arguing, just to argue.

No, I chose an example that would be clear. People generally do not want money just to have, they want it to spend. Even in cases where people build up cash savings it is in anticipation of spending the money later. If you have some additional argument as to why people want money for itself, please share. If not, then the "they don't even get to keep the loan money!" argument doesn't do much work for you.

So, you do know what I'm talking about. Why are you pretending not to?

As I said in my previous post your assessment appears to me to be inaccurate. I understand what you are saying but I disagree and you have not presented any arguments that change my mind.

I'm sorry to tell you that the Central Bank concept was meant as a way to keep involuntary servitude.

But why are you now trying to convince me it was anything other than that?
If you don't believe me, that's fine, I'm only concerned with the future.

That's a strong claim, and it would be great if you presented any evidence for it. I don't much care whether or not you believe this, nor am I trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am asking you for evidence as to why you believe this at all, let alone why you believe it so strongly.

Stop treating economics like a religion.

Surely you're joking. I mean, you are trolling me with this, right? You have presented a series of absolute convictions, refused to provide any evidence for any of them, refused to accept the possibility that you could even maybe potentially be wrong on any point. All that I have done is disagree with your analysis and ask your for some of the evidence that has so thoroughly convinced you. One of those sounds more like a religion, especially in the derogatory sense that you used the word, than the other.

So, you are arguing just to argue.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to get more information about how you formed this belief and why you believe it so strongly. That you believe it is clear, as is how strongly you believe it.

You have been given enough to confirm or deny the concept, yet I can tell you're not willing to theorize it.

If the information I have gotten from you in this thread is enough to accept or reject your conclusion then I have no choice but to reject it. As before, more evidence and arguments might change my mind but you clearly are either not interested in providing or are unable to provide those. Why do you think I haven't considered what you've posted here? Is it only because I still disagree?

I am not the only one who has had this epiphany. And it is no big secret.

I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Most people, by your own description, disagree with the position you've put forth here. Your efforts to get people to agree with you don't seem to be very successful from what you've said here. You have expressed frustration that, after talking with people about this, they don't agree with you and asked why it's so hard, etc. etc.

There are three relevant possibilities for this: 1. You are right, and others are unable see it; 2. You are right, and others could see it, but your explanations and arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate your correctness; 3. You are wrong. It is striking to me that you are so certain that it's (1), and could not conceivably be (2).

Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?

Yep.

Well I guess that's it then. I wish you would have shared more of the argumentation that produced this certainty, or that you were willing to demonstrate that certainty by engaging with critiques, but that's not where we've ended up. At this point I doubt that anything like that will happen-- you've either emptied your quiver, or you have no interest in discussion or sharpening your arguments. May all your decisions be so clear, I guess.

The lender does not "create" it, and neither did you.

Banks can create it and the borrower is the reason why the bank creates it.

Where does this money come from? It comes right out of your pocket.

--Somebody else's pocket.

Iit doesn't matter if if the money came from your pocket or from someone else's pocket before being in yours. What matters is that it didn't suddenly materialize out of nowhere.

You should think about the thing in more "classical" terms because it's much more obvious when you think of money in the classic, physical sense. Think 15th-16th century if you will. If you wanted, you could go back another thousand or two thousand years earlier, but let's not go back too far, let's stay with... Shylock. Who is probably the most famous money lender ever. The coolest one, anyway.

You need 3,000 ducats for some reason: ships, trading in faraway lands, women, luxury watches, you know. So you ask Shylock to lend you those. You're lucky you didn't spit on him, so he isn't asking a pound of your flesh. Shylock obviously wants his money back, but also he needs to live, so he agrees only after you agreeing to pay a little interest of 300 ducats on top of that.
You find 300 ducats a bit steep, but Shylock insists: "I had three guys not pay back their debt last month, so I need to take a little extra from all others, both to make up my losses, and to cover that risk for the future. And with all those people spitting on me, I spend a fortune at the dry-cleaners every week".

Now, you really need that money so you agree to this deal, and unless you want to end up in front of the Doge in chains, you gotta find those additional 300 ducats somewhere. You don't create them because if the Doge gets aware of you doing that, you lose your head. They must come from someone's pocket. And, they likely were in yet someone else's pocket before that. At some point in time, they were minted by the Lord High Coin Minter by order of the Doge.

Every ducat has "Contains gold worth one pound of silver" printed on it, which is an obvious lie, it would need to be nearly twice as heavy for that, but since it has the Doge's seal, that's fine anyway. Nobody wants those heavy coins any more, they're not practical. As long as the Doge promises that in principle there's a pound of silver in each coin, everybody is happy. They're a lot easier to carry around now than they used to be. And the Doge is happy, too, because he needs more coins to pay his curtisans than he has gold for.

Incidentially, none of your ships sink, and everything goes as you wished. Three months later you have 4,000... err... 3,500 ducats, so you will even get to keep, um, 200 ducats after paying back Shylock, which is 100 ducats after tax. Of course you don't carry that huge amount of gold around all the time, Schmuyle keeps them for you, safely in his treasure chest.

So you want to pay back Shylock and ask Schmuyle for 3,300 ducats. He replies: "Oh, but I know Shylock, we go to the strip club together every Sabbat. I will write 'Tis be good for 3,300 ducats, me friend' on this paper, and he will happily accept".

The truth is, of course, that Schmuyle lost your money rolling dice, but nobody knows that his treasure chest is empty. You could say Schmuyle's treasure chest is a bit like Schrödinger's treasure chest. You don't know for sure what's inside, but as long as you don't look, nobody dies.

Now, you believe that he created money out of nowhere, but he did not. He bluffed, and nobody called his bluff. Shylock accepts the promise, and eventually some guy will pay back his debts with Schmuyle, and there will be some gold inside his treasure chest again. Maybe.

Shylock isn't bothered because he knows Schmuyle. He is a nice chaber, and as long as Shylock can in principle have that money any time he wants, this is fine. Maybe next time someone asks for money to pay Schmuyle, he might as well give them a piece of paper, too. Shylock doesn't want to look inside that treasure chest, it's all good the way it is. The piece of paper takes up less storage than a sack full of gold, too.

That's how banks still work nowadays, and they still don't create money. They take existing money by making promises on money that they don't have, and this works as long as there is not a sufficiently high number of people (or sufficiently wealthy people) who want their money. But it's still only just a promise (or fraud, if you want to call it that), not "creating money".

The Government can get a loan from its Central Bank, but the taxpayers repay those loans and the interest on those loans. It simply adds more burden unto the public.

Yes, but the government controls the central bank, and the fact that the central bank has the word "bank" in it is inconsequential. It is not truly a bank. It is the money-making authority. Government doesn't need to take a loan. They can just print the money they need, both to satisfy their immediate demands, and to kill their existing debt.
This is what Schäuble (with considerable help from Draghi) is doing right now. When asked how he intended to eliminate debt as promised, merely by trying not to add more, he laughed and said: "You really don't know how this works, do you. Inflation will do the rest". And that is true. Inflation will indeed do away with the debt, but not at the cost of the tax payer or the public as you say.
It will do so at the cost of everybody who owns money. Those who don't own money do not lose anything (in fact, those who have debt lose their debt, which could be seen as "gaining" money).
But that's OK because we hate everybody who owns something, that's just right, isn't it. If you have money, you must be some kind of criminal anyway, and if you save you're stupid, so you deserve losing it.

Which should illustrate why debt is artificial too.

Not at all. You want something that you don't have. You have nothing to give in return (no money, no goods) but you want it anyway, so you promise to pay back later. There you go, debt. It's not artificial in any way.
It's the natural consequence of people legitimately wanting something in return when asked to give something of value away.

You have expressed frustration that, after talking with people about this, they don't agree with you and asked why it's so hard, etc. etc.

How can I not be disappointed in people, if after I explain away the mystery of economic failure, they want to forget everything I just said as quickly as possible and go to their "happy place".

Well I guess that's it then.

I haven't given up on Humanity just yet.

What matters is that it didn't suddenly materialize out of nowhere.

...it materialized out of bank loans.

Shylock

I'm speechless.

If you wanted, you could go back another thousand or two thousand years earlier

I would have preferred that.

Yes, but the government controls the central bank

Why the sudden faith?

Not at all. You want something that you don't have. You have nothing to give in return (no money, no goods)

Neither does the bank.

-

Which part specifically does anyone have difficulty understanding? (and please don't say "all of it")

-

People generally do not want money just to have, they want it to spend. Even in cases where people build up cash savings it is in anticipation of spending the money later. If you have some additional argument as to why people want money for itself, please share. If not, then the "they don't even get to keep the loan money!" argument doesn't do much work for you.

So you would prefer to have a balance of $0.00?

Even if you have surplus dollars that you have nothing to spend on, why would that be so bad? Is it the end of the world?

Have you really never met anyone whose only ambition in life is to simply have more money than they need?

I'm sorry to tell you that the Central Bank concept was meant as a way to keep involuntary servitude.

But why are you now trying to convince me it was anything other than that?
If you don't believe me, that's fine, I'm only concerned with the future.

That's a strong claim, and it would be great if you presented any evidence for it. I don't much care whether or not you believe this, nor am I trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am asking you for evidence as to why you believe this at all, let alone why you believe it so strongly.

Sorry, no mini-psychology lecture either. What's done, is done.

Most people, by your own description, disagree with the position you've put forth here.

They don't disagree. They don't fault it either - I think the lack of an easy fix scares them a little bit and so they rather hold onto the status quo (which is fine for those unaffected - but terrible for all those on the receiving end of all that shifting-debt).

I guess we can try again.

Your position seems based on a looming and ever-growing threat of deflation, which you claim is based on banks requiring more in loan interest than they provide in loans. When banks do this in aggregate, they demand more money than exists in the system. This works while debt shifts from agent to agent, but this enslaves those agents, either indefinitely or until a catastrophic collapse, neither of which is good. Is that an acceptable summary? If not, please correct.

The most important issue I have with this is that none of what you are describing is deflationary. Banks take the "extra" from the interest and pay it out in wages, stock dividends, additional loans, etc. They don't destroy it, and indeed When banks "create" money through loans, and that money stays in the economy, then the money supply is increased. If there is slack in the economy (it's producing less than it could), this is not inflationary but is expansionary (the extra money means more total stuff gets produced). If there is not slack in the economy you could expect inflation as prices bid up for existing production. The former is great, The latter is not, though the central bank has shown that it can handle inflation through interest rate changes. In either case the money all spends the same and the economy runs on it just the same. I don't see any deflationary pressure here, at all. It also doesn't address injections of money into the economy from Treasury notes, etc.

Khaiy, on 26 Apr 2016 - 4:41 PM, said:

People generally do not want money just to have, they want it to spend. Even in cases where people build up cash savings it is in anticipation of spending the money later. If you have some additional argument as to why people want money for itself, please share. If not, then the "they don't even get to keep the loan money!" argument doesn't do much work for you.

So you would prefer to have a balance of $0.00?

Even if you have surplus dollars that you have nothing to spend on, why would that be so bad? Is it the end of the world?

Have you really never met anyone whose only ambition in life is to simply have more money than they need?

I would not prefer a current accounts balance of $0, although if I could obtain the stuff I would have spent money on without needing the money (with similar safety and convenience) then I would be indifferent. In such a case, money would seem to be meaningless. There's nothing wrong with surplus money in a bank account, but its only function and value still lie in spending it-- the plan is just to spend it later. Maybe saving up for a big purchase, or having a cushion in case of emergency. I still don't want dollars just to have dollars; if I can't ever spend them (say, they are in a life-term CD), they are worthless.

I have met people whose only ambition is more money, but most spend it as well as amassing it and always they plan to spend it in some way. Maybe I need to meet a dragon, famed hoarders that they are.

Sorry, no mini-psychology lecture either. What's done, is done.

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand? I asked before if you were trolling. I'm not interested in psychology or the operation of your mind. I am looking for evidence and arguments to support your position. In that regard nothing "is done", because you haven't done anything. To all appearances you do not have a strong grasp on the monetary system, the economy, or related topics. You have refused to do anything to change this appearance-- no evidence, no internally consistent argumentation, nothing. You just posted what you had, declared that your correctness is obvious (it is, just not the degree of correctness you might have hoped for), and then complained asking "why is it so hard for people to understand?".

Either you are wrong, and other people pick up on that, or you are bad at explaining it. Or both.

A very optimistic view of the credit system. Regardless of what they do with the profits, is it fair that they put up "nothing" while you labor on their behalf?

Maybe I need to meet a dragon, famed hoarders that they are.

You'll find some of them gambling about a year's worth of minimum wage during a single night.

Either you are wrong, and other people pick up on that

No. I am right. People automatically assume I'm "looking" for financial advice - when I bring up the subject. As they become updated, I think the truth they learn perturbs them. They are in disbelief or shock, as if to say "There's no way --I would have known..."

or you are bad at explaining it.

No. It's easy to understand. Why are people "bad" at accepting it? Is it because acknowledging the truth makes them feel like fools?

declared that your correctness is obvious

It is obvious. It's painfully obvious. The only thing scarier than the false economy is people's apathy towards questioning it.

Why are you so defiant in defending extra debt? It kinda makes no sense for you or anyone else to do that.

In that regard nothing "is done", because you haven't done anything.

What is your true motive here? Are you upset to learn that Banks create money? Why defend their conditions that others pay them in full and above? Don't you care about how human beings treat another (and the environment)? What do you risk admitting the truth about the inflation/debt system?

This concept is so easy to understand that it staggers the imagination as to how most people haven't noticed it already on their own in this day and age.

You want "evidence"? Like a confession? From who!? Who'd publicly admit to something so scandalous? Or even deliberately draw attention to it? You think anyone with that kind of "power" would give up one iota of said power voluntarily? Profit like that is better than winning the lottery.

You want "evidence"? Like a confession? From who!?

Ah yes, the classic conspiracy theory circular reference.
"Have you any evidence for this?"
"Of course not, the lack of evidence proves a cover up!"