BrianRhineheart:
You're a hero of manual quote arrangement. I am not, so my formatting will not look as nice as yours.
What risk? What are the banks actually risking?
The risk of not being paid back. It's not generally a huge risk for a whole institution, but a bank that never gets repaid on its loans will eventually fail as a result.
You just answered that.
No, not at all. You want to spend the money you borrow for some purpose, or else the loan really is a terrible deal. That's why I included the mattress piece. Spending the money is consuming goods and services, which you can "keep" after you've paid back the cost of the loan.
See, you do know what I'm talking about.
Yes, I think so. I've read your posts carefully and asked questions to try to clarify your meaning. I have also thought about these matters a lot, though cetainly less than many. The issue now is, I think, not that I don't understand what you've said but that I don't see the connection to your conclusions. There may be more information you can provide that will help me see that link, though that increasingly seems not to be the case. It may be that we just disagree.
It becomes official - there is no "undo" button at that point.
That would make the money more real, not less.
Why would it never be spent?
What I'm trying to express, perhaps poorly, is that holding X dollars is not the purpose of a loan or of money. The idea that holding a dollar in your hand is the only possible measure of the value of a dollar is just wrong. Few people want currency, but most want the production that currency lets them obtain.
That the point of trade, isn't it?
Yes, and the point of money is to facilitate trade. Again, holding a unit of currency is not important. Using it in transactions is, in which case it's the movement of money through the system that matters, not where money is resting at a particular moment. This and the above point were in response to your "you can't keep any of the money" comment.
Naturally. Who wouldn't be?
I'm not that unhappy about it. It's not issue-free, to be sure, but neither is it some massive, shadowy con job on the population.
What if I was a billionaire?
Or a member of the board of a central bank?
What difference does it make?
Are you kidding? If you throw out assertions, but not enough evidence to support those assertions, your credibility may bridge the gap, at least for the sake of argument. You're hammering your assertions pretty hard all over the thread, but your arguments and evidence aren't supporting the assertions. If you were a Nobel-prize winning economist or monetary policy theorist I might have more faith in your assertions even in the absence of evidence which compels me. Instead, you're using terminology oddly, blending different ideas together and deploying them for convenience instead of clarity or methodology, and complaining that pretty much everyone is a fool but you and you are one of the few guardians of the Truth. If you want to be believed you'll need to make arguments that are better or more persuasive in some way. Your major persuasive point really seems to be what you perceive as your own Obvious Correctness, and getting frustrated when people are not convinced by it.
I said "Don't believe the bullshit", you can still believe the truth on the rare occasions it's mentioned.
I should hope so. But you didn't provide any guidance as to what's bullshit and what isn't. The clear implication from this thread is that anything contrary to your position is inherently bullshit. See above for why that doesn't do much for me.
I didn't want to bring it up, but I'd thought it help to understand how it got its start. Sadly, it was true. They have my compliments (even though they passed away long before I was born), because the system is "elegant". But we live in different times now. There needs to be some adjustments made to that wonderful system.
Unless you have direct quotes from the architect of the central banking system (18th and 19th century architects would be OK too, because the continuity of the central bank has not been constant but its nature has been more continuous) saying that it's a substitute for slavery I will still find this assertion a stretch too far. And if times are different, necessitating a change, does that mean that the current system is no longer an effective substitute for slavery? Or are you referring to the social acceptability of slavery between then and now?
You want me to do everything? I'm not getting paid for this.
You've not done anything. If you want to fuss and vent about how not enough people are being persuaded by what you have to say then you might want to try to be more persuasive. You indicated that you had more information you intended to post (the thread title includes "step 1"!), and that that information might help express your views more clearly or persuade others.What, you were only going to grace everyone with more if you got universal accolades in part 1?
Which part?
Take some time to think about the cause and effects if you were to adjust the amount of debt without changing the amount of money supplied. Take a look at some of the policies that central lenders are trying right now to stimulate the economy with. Think outside the box, lower the debt below 100%, and imagine how that would change things. If you're sincere, I'm confident you'll have your "eureka" moment and want to preach it to the world.
All of it. I'm not sure that your understanding of the monetary system is accurate but it's been hard to draw enough information out of you to conclude that. My view could be wrong as well, though I don't think it is, but your argumentation here has not lead me to conclude that either. Obviously the same is true in reverse, and you are not convinced by what I've said. You could present me with some of the (apparently nefarious) policies from central lenders, which may well be enough to change my opinion. But you don't. You direct me to the wide world to be convinced, with my only guide your supposed Obvious Total Correctness.
I've thought about the issues you have raised, before as well as during this thread, and none of my eureka moments have involved reaching your position. I don't imagine that lowering "the debt" below 100% would change things anywhere near what you are suggesting it would. Your use of "the debt" is also unclear-- are you referring to the national debt?
Are you really the same person that, upthread, was so unhappy that others acted as if they already knew it all and would not listen to any other ideas?
I know this topic is uncomfortable for some people, because it means admitting to some truths that you simply wish were not true. But there is no way forward or way out of this without honest critical examination of the system in place. For most of my life I took it for granted that this economic system was the best possible one and that anyone who failed, did so at their own fault. I can no longer pretend that to be the case.
Can't just wish this one away. It's easy to figure out if you're willing to take the time and be honest about it.
I can't believe that everyone has become so cynical that they refuse to accept the idea of a better result for everybody.
I'd like a bit more of that honest and critical examination from you. I can absolutely accept the idea of a better system for everybody, but until you present that idea there is no alternative to the current system for me to evaluate in this thread. Even if I put one forward it may not be the one that you are considering.
What you have offered so far is your own certainty, along with some muddled platitudes, and a mystifying refusal to post additional information which you, at least at one time, intended to post. Because you "shouldn't have to do everything" in a thread you started ostensibly to do what you are now reluctant to do.