1. If private banks create money by loaning it into existence (i.e. just typing numbers into an account from thin air). 2. Why did they have to be bailed out...? Can't they just... type themselves some more money...?
I know it's not as simple as this however I rather feel in the complexity is the initial thread of a shell game - but I have to emphasise, this is what I'm asking:
Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?
>If you can't answer that please don't respond unless it's to approve of Denise.
So Jews can give more debt and masturbate to the thought that they control you
Adam Sanchez
But do you know how "the Jew" does it Goy? Do you understand it?
Andrew Hall
They aren't just creating money out of thin air, their sowing the seeds of economic growth/the economy being larger/more productive in the future by loaning out a large up-front amount of capital to be used in initially heavy investments which can then be used to generate some productive apparatus more productive than what could have been done with a lesser amount of capital. What the bank then gets back or takes is some of the surplus gains made by the company which took from them via their increased relative productivity. Repeat this process numerous times and in aggregate and it represents net gains in economic growth, productivity, and efficiency. When banks themselves fail then it's right then and there and not contingent upon some vague future growth prospect, and without some massive government/central meta-bank to bail them out they'd just fail and crash nearly all credit flow within the economy.
Xavier Carter
I mean I specifically said answer this question:
"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
Your answer was:
"jews lmao"
You know? So now we've gotten that out of the way can you or someone else actually take a shot at answering this otherwise you really are no different from black people blaming everything on whitey.
Julian Mitchell
Take a macroeconomics course you degenerate
Levi Evans
The banks made mortgage loans that defaulted. When you foreclose on a home you can only go after the property, not the full loan balance, and a lot of these homes had lost a lot of their value, which means the original amount lent was lost They use people's money to make these loans. They made so many of these bad mortgage loans that they started to lose considerable amounts of money that wasn't theirs.
Austin Wilson
>Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?
Because they gambled most of it away. They're really just oversized gambling dens at this point. If you haven't seen it yet, watch the movie called The Big Short. While it's not 100% accurate, it does a good enough job of describing what happened during the recent recession. Plus it's entertaining enough that it will keep your average normie engaged throughout the film.
Levi Hughes
private banks don't create money by loaning it out they have to have that money on hand in order to give it to the loan recipient. the bank makes money on the interest. private banks are forced to keep a certain percentage of their networth as reserve cash because some loans can fall through and the home won't be worth enough to recover the money owed.
some of the money creation comes from the idea that private banks can borrow money from the us government at a low rate. they can then take that money and issue loans to individuals with it making money on the difference. the interest rate and the amount of reserve money private banks have is manipulated by the government to do things like change inflation and the amount of cash in the market. This is what they do when trying to stimulate the market/ effect inflation
Evan Taylor
Why didn't the central bank just tell the Federal Reserve to print more money? Because of the Federal Reserve act of 1913 which made everyone into a company whose future tax burden is sold on the market. Without new babies or immigrants the system collapses in on itself so back in 2008 there weren't enough future tax paying creditors to sell their debt on the market to print more money.
Joshua Bell
That's more like it, now let's take that:
>They aren't just creating money out of thin air, their sowing the seeds of economic growth/the economy being larger/more productive in the future by loaning out a large up-front amount of capital to be used in initially heavy investments which can then be used to generate some productive apparatus more productive than what could have been done with a lesser amount of capital.
>They aren't just creating money out of thin air
They definitely are but let's put that to one side for a second and address this:
>[their] sowing the seeds of economic growth / the economy being larger/more productive in the future by loaning out a large up-front amount of capital to be used in initially heavy investments which can then be used to generate some productive apparatus more productive than what could have been done with a lesser amount of capital.
1. First of all that's at the most charitable interpretation only about 8% of what the financial industry does (hamiltonian style industrial / productive capital investment) - it's a great fig leaf to wheel out to cover the other 92% of what they do.
2. Second that's like saying if I buy a car by writing I.O.U. on a piece of paper instead of creating money out of thin air I'm increasing the profitability of a car manufacturing business which will then be able to increase its R&D and plant manufacturing and thus generate even more of value to contribute to the economy and to the consumer
I.e. Switching out the description of my end of the transaction which is entirely unproductive for the end of the transaction which is productive (i.e. manufacturing cars) is not a refutation of the fact I've paid for it with a piece of paper with IOU written on it.
Can you show me where I'm wrong there thus far? Preferably without calling me names as that's not really refuting what I've said so far.
Josiah Collins
HURRR READ A BOOK PFFT
Andrew King
they did do that. they defaulted on all their bad debts and then loaned the government all the money they lost, then the government gave it back to the banks for free. neat huh?
Yes that's a description of why sub-prime mortgages created a crisis - I didn't ask for a description of that, I asked:
"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
Daniel Miller
The banks are under legal scrutiny to make sure they balance their accounts. So if they (((create))) a million pound by issuing a loan of non-existing money. They have to make an account with a negative million dollars. And someone has to have that debt pinned on them. They need bailouts when they run out of goyim to pin the negative balance on. I'm not sure I approve of Denise, but sure, milkers - amirite?
the banks got bailed out by the biggest bank the us government but they didn't do it by just giving them free money which would have caused inflation, potentially causing hyperinflation. most of the banks were forced to give out shares or warrents to the us government or to have other banks absorb the assets of a failing bank. The us sold the stock and warrents. if you had bought any during the bailout you would now be a very rich individual.
Brody Torres
I'm not having a debate over semantics or playing word games here, I'm asking a specific question:
"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
If you can't answer it you're not worth anything here - sling some insults if you like but we all know where that puts generally speaking in a debate.
Owen Stewart
> They definitely are but let's put that to one side for a second and address this: They aren't though, they aren't immediately or at one moment discretely increasing the net money supply within the economy at any one second, they are laying a foundation for gains in productivity, it's illegal for them to create money. >1. First of all that's at the most charitable interpretation only about 8% of what the financial industry does (hamiltonian style industrial / productive capital investment) - it's a great fig leaf to wheel out to cover the other 92% of what they do. Do you have actual figures for the investments or moves made by the financial/banking industry or are you just making shit up? Even then that implies that a lot of what the financial industry does outside of loaning to industrial producers isn't profitable or productive when the entire point of it is largely just to direct money to efficient profit-making firms which is just doing what consumers within a market system want and I'm not going to institute a system so controlling that people can't do what they want, it seems wrong and overly authoritarian. > 2. Second that's like saying if I buy a car by writing I.O.U. on a piece of paper instead of creating money out of thin air I'm increasing the profitability of a car manufacturing business which will then be able to increase its R&D and plant manufacturing and thus generate even more of value to contribute to the economy and to the consumer Well you aren't giving over your property claims and in a way you're right but only insofar as it increases the POTENTIAL profitability of the business, the thing with banks is that their loans are on a massive scale and represent a risk on THEIR end, not on the other businesses end, so of course they are going to want to structure their business agreements differently than small-scale/individual loaners or how the loanee would want them.
Dominic Young
because they can only create it when they make a loan. someone has to take responsibility for the collateral if the credit defaults. basically a loan is like a slavery contract. ill invent this magic number than you have to be my slave till you earned all that money back plus interest. so they used the tax base as the slave in the 08 crash. they loaned us trillions, for us to give it back to them, and we have to pay interest on their losses. isnt economics cool?
They create money out of thin air, then give it to themselves and other extreme leftists in mass quantities, and keep non-leftists out of the money channels. Think for a moment, how can useless leftists and faggots that do not create anything except troubles and health hazards suddenly become rich and successful out of thin air? By CHEATING and CRONYISM, like they always do! They can do it because money is no longer backed up by anything, since Nixon killed the gold standard, so they can print themselves money and achieve power without having the talent or having created anything of value. They do not have to worry for their next meal, so they can go from useless endeavor to useless endeavor until they get lucky. The bank crisis was caused because the banks were forced to at least keep 1% of real money in their deposits, which they didn't have. Imagine being allowed by law to declare you have 10^x the amount of money you really have, and you can write IOUs to bet it in casinos all day, in exchange for real money.
Carter Nguyen
>Why is it the case that a bank can only create money out of thin air when they create a loan?
because then they owe money to themselves, and their total debt has not changed.
>"i owe ten dollars, so if i invent ten dollars to pay off my debt, i then owe ten dollars to myself again."
Adam Peterson
For your first point see this guy: /\ WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER
Now this is the thing: Why? Why is it the case that a bank can only create money out of thin air when they create a loan?
Ayden Robinson
>year of our lord 2018 >denise milani still hasn't done nudes
Biggest cocktease in glamour model history.
Eli Evans
Now the question you think you satisfactorily answered was:
"Why did they have to be bailed out?"
The question you didn't satisfactorily answer was:
"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
>Why is it the case that a bank can only create money out of thin air when they create a loan?
they dont "have to". they could issue loans from deposits in their bank, but the banking policy of the west permits them to do this (((for some reason))).
Joseph Morales
A little sleepy so maybe not so coherent, but to answer your question:
The banks answer to the fed. In short, if they fail, the fed and federal bonds are on the rocks. The entire financial system depends on these banks being afloat.
Therefore when the banks fuck up, the fed creates even more fucking money out of thin air to make sure they stay afloat and we all suffer for it.
Private currency is superior and far more efficient, but the government doesn't like that because it hurts their monopoly over the American economy.
May crypto fuck its shit up.
Aaron Gutierrez
>"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
ok, so i think its because, if they lend the money to themselves and then cancel the loans they just made, then the company has to report that as a loss, which hurts the profits of the company, which hurts the share price, which hurts the jew. the banking cartels made record profits through the 08 crash remember. they needed to do it the way they did in order to keep the jew power in place. its like saying why did the jew have to make holocaust denial illegal?
Landon Flores
I approve of Denise. Her pic gives me a special feeling!
Blake Phillips
As much as I like the (((for some reason))) what actually is the reason?
Don't fall into the trap of just saying
JJJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDEEENNN
Because it really is just like black people saying
WHITE PRIVILEGE - or whatever else. It's a simple phantasm to blame problems on one either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand - you don't like it when they do it and I don't like it when anyone does it.
Christopher Nguyen
>"Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air?"
and i know im repeating myself, but the term bailout is a bit misleading. they technically bailed the government out, because the government chose to make itself responsible for all the junk debt the banks issued.
Easton Barnes
1. Banks can lend out more than they own. That is fractional reserve banking. They can't loan out infinite money. 2. The subprime crisis was created because Bush deregulated the market. They started taking high risk mortgages and bundled them together to create what would appear to be low risk assets. 3. when these assets failed or lost value certain banks started failing and because of interbank lending all banks was in trouble. 4. The bailout was the central bank buying up all these non performing asset so the banks got money and central banks got bad mortgages. 5. futher more the central bank bought US bonds in it's QE peograms to futher "help" the economy.
Michael Williams
Yeah you're making a lot of definitely legitimate points and you're definitely answering the:
"Why did they have to be bailed out?" - part of the question. I.e. - TBTF (read: symbio-parasite).
However it's specifically whether anyone has ever thought about the implications of the fact that banks can only create money when they make loans.
Blake Allen
ok the (((reason))) is that it increases the amount ova available credit to infinity, so there is no dependence on deposits for credit to be dispensed. this means that growth is easier for banks, and profits can be made on pure speculation. its literally the jewiest thing ever. just announcing that you have the power to create wealth for no fucking reason. its the epitome of jewish privilige.
Nicholas Garcia
or in other words, it doesnt matter how many cars a car factory makes, if it hasnt taken a loan not a single dollar will be created, while every time a nig goes to a get shark loan to buy weed and hookers, dollars are created?
Jaxon Scott
this is why the crash happened essentially, for this reason. when you can issue credit on an unlimited basis, you feel a lot more secure to issue credit to risky enterprise. hence why they were giving loans to every retard who thought their shitty home rennovations would make them a millionare in a day.
Aiden Lopez
Simple: money is a meme. You cannot eat it, you cannot use it to build anything. Its a mindtrick, a bad joke. And it rules our societies. Because its how the ones who produce nothing take everything from the one who do. They brainwash you, create a matrix, then you obey, and pay. Take a dollar bill in your hand. Look at it. If it cannot be exchanged for anything , what is it good for ? If its value can be affected by some, with a complete monopoly, just by pushing buttons and selling/buying things, whats its real worth ? Nothing. Its a meme. The whole concept of economy is bogus, as long as usury, speculation, loans out of thin air, money printing, etc exist. Peasants produce lot of food, get poor. Leeches in office producing nothing, get rich. An engineer invent something, the money go to stock owners. Etc. The whole legal and economic system is a complete fraud. If you do not agree, well, maybe you did not broke the conditionning. Think on it.
Jeremiah Morgan
Because there has to be a "legitimate" reason for the bank to create more money. Otherwise it'd be considered a fraud and illegal activity. The only entity which can do this without any reason is the federal reserve, and even they technically only loan the money to the state.
Julian Ward
It's not out of thin air. They do have to have reserves baking the liabilities. Not 1 to 1 ofc. It's not much they need but they do need underlying assets. That's why there were a crisis.
Jace Miller
Yeah and the government does that by borrowing against the collateral of tax payers - it comes out of your ass eventually. But again, the reason I'm asking is because:
The central banks also helped out by hoovering up government bonds to push down interest rates to bias towards investment in the "real economy".
However it still doesn't answer the question: If a bank can create money out of thin air by creating loans - why can't they solve the fact they're out of money by loaning themselves money?
What's the conceptual framework people seem to have had bleached out of their discourse so they can't answer this question?
Chase Lopez
exactly - the mechanics of the modern magic money system are arcane and not particularly helpful to understand. what matters is that the jews can make loans to infinity using the full faith and credit of the US government
Hudson Watson
i tried to answer this question here
Carter Bailey
The way it actually works is they make the loan and sell it to the Federal Reserve, which buys the loan with fresh new money hot off the printing press. It's not that Citi and Wells Fargo have a magic terminal where they type in the number of new dollars they want to create, only Janet Yellen has that. Citi and Wells operate the way you'd expect any business to operate, they just have a division that goes to the Fed for fresh bucks daily.
Xavier White
the problem is that they can use loans given as assets, so they stack loans on loans
I mean you're actually onto something there Clement really in the sense of freeing one's mind up a bit about something so simple: Money is a meme.
As you say, it's just an idea. You can't eat it, drink it or build anything with it. It is only operative to the extent people believe in it. It's like laws - all they really are is words on paper. However the structure of those laws can lead to very different results - and so too with the structure of money as an idea - it isn't necessarily so it HAS to operate in this fashion.
So why do banks need to be bailed out when they can loan money out of thin air? What's the issue about the structure of money people are missing? I get that it's a credit-based theory of money - but what does it imply about the nature of it?
Aaron Gutierrez
private banks doesnt just typed the money themself, it's the central bank/feds who typed, so priate bank get money from the central bank and then loaned it. central bank/feds never have a bailout.
Mason Parker
Do not come with this "the rich don't deserve their wealth" bullshit. The peasant chooses to stay poor. Unless he is literally retarded he can always choose the career of a "office leech". The whole economy worked wonderfully under the gold standard as the money represented something, what you are complaining about is fiat currency.
people start asking questions. its better to pretend youre losing money, while writing yourself a check, than to pretend everything is fine and let people realize it really is just a meme
Chase Ramirez
That money wasn't lost, it was stolen, laundered out of the West to certain (((gangsters))) and their Mothership
They want to avoid Zimbabwe, and more specifically Weimar, because all the little Hitlers would instantly rise to power. However, they are on loaned time too; payback is coming.
Karma is a whore. She gives to all.
Dylan Cox
Well whilst you're right technically what he's saying about a credit theory of money is to some extent applicable to a gold standard too.
After all you can't eat gold even if it has some limited industrial uses - I think Clement's just pointing out that money is an idea, and it's that which imparts its value.
Gold when used in a monetary function has a lot more value potentially by dint of that use - but crucially what does something like bimetallism for example offer which a credit theory of money doesn't?
Logan Taylor
When you make a loan you don't actually make money. you make credit. So let say i want to buy a car. I go to credit company. They give me the credit. Then i go to the car dealership. he takes my credit. now he owns my credit. Then the credit company might even sell my debt on to somebody else. If the car dealer is taking out the money in cash he is exchanging the credit he had in the bank for cash.
That's a matter of accounting. In America the accounting laws are rather loose so they can do a lot of nonsense. But in theory at least they still have to show assets to back their liabilities up.
Dominic Walker
Op is waking up; everyone else is still in the dream.
It is called scalar divergence. When the scalar field of the Money Space Sources itself by: 1. Selling money for more money 2. Selling the Production instead of the product through stocks, and mergers 3. delaying the sale indefinitely through rentier activity 4. creating any other market to value trade other than the consumer market such as the labor market or the resource market. 5. storing the potential for future wealth of good in money delaying the exchange of goods which sets value then it no longer is an intermediary to the Trade Space. Here's the thing. The conservation law requires that there only be so much stuff. In the Trade Space there is only so much stuff, but in the Money Space, the stuff Sources and never sinks. A person can lose money but in the macro the money is somewhere. (cont)
Hunter Cooper
You're right - loaning the money into existence in the way I'm saying as a solution would have create an inflationary crisis.
However outside of that when capital isn't terrifyingly misallocated like it was in the sub-prime mortgage crisis - why is it when they loan money out of nothing it doesn't create a Zimbabwe situation...?
That's not a hard question /\ but it's worth keeping at the front of your mind.
Mason Richardson
>But in theory in theory, what stops them from lying? what stops them from paying people off to cover for their lies? what stops them from creating loopholes to keep stacking more debt upon debt?
Banks are businesses whose product are loans and whose profit are interest. They act as a service by facilitating investment. The money that banks “create out of thin air” is the banks’ “profit.” You lend money, charging interest. When it is repaid with the interest, banks can now lend the amount before plus the interest out, AND charge interest on that new loan. This and the reserve ratio set by the government plus excess reserves held by banks is the basis of the money multiplier. The less reserves banks are required to hold, the more they can loan and the more “profit” off of interest there is made, and the fast the money “multiplies.”
Nathaniel Scott
Simple. Its a pump. This meme, which is in fact not value of exchange, due to reasons i explained, but a unit of domination. You want a house. You take a loan. What does this loan do ? Does it build the house ? No. The construction workers do. Does it pay the workers ? Not even that. It creates more money for the banker, and a legal power over you to seize your properties if you encounter a hardship. Its about proportions. If there is not a finite amount of money, or a amount strictly in relation to the real worth of existing goods and services, then, its not the amount you own that matter, the the amount you own compared to others. Be a bank. Make tons of money by scamming your clients and speculate. Transfer the benefits to bankers accounts through "bonuses". Go bankrupt. Be bailed out from public , aka tax or more loans (!), have fund again. Rince and repeat. You milk people from both side, just by transferring your benefits of your company into your pockets (another legal mindtrick). You will be richer and richer (and therefore more powerful) and the rest poorer. Pretty devious and clever. And everything under the threat of collapsing the economy on which people are dependant. Also a trick. So, why our goverments do the same ? Same reasons. What is the real power of a country without much natural ressources, not much industry left, like France, over a country with plenty of both ? Money and laws. Our countries maintain the illusion of power through this.
Christopher Lopez
Bankruptcy of a company depends on cash amd cash flow. A company can keep running deficits forever, as long as it has the cash to support its deficit (see IPOs of companies like Snapchat, which are valued tens of billions but haven’t made a profit once in their history)
The banks in 2008 had to write off lots of loans because the debtors were insolvent. This ruined their cash flow, and naturally they could not raise new capital because they need new deposits or interest payments to get that cash. The money creation mechanism is interest on loans, and this was obviously not happening because they were already having to write stuff off due to insolvencies. As for the deposits, people’s deposits were already being appropriated to cover their insolvent debt, but this doesn’t increase the bank’s cash, only its revenue which is distinct.
In short, insolvent loan->no interest payment->no new cash generated to loan out for more interest->bank runs out of cash->needs capital injection from government or goes bankrupt
Connor Sanders
Because banks don't issue money? The central money issuing authority of a country does, the whole premise or the the joos is that they control the banks and the issuing authorities (which they do in UK and US)
Carson Cruz
zimbabwe didnt fail because of fiscal policy, it failed because of niggers. even worse - commie niggers. and loaning money does create inflation. they say this inflation is good because, get this, it makes people invest more and participate in the banking system more, because their money is worth less overtime so people have to always have their money in the system.
Caleb Morris
So in most countries the Central Bank is not really owned. It's a self owned institution. In USA it's owned. But they are still in theory regulated and run by congress but congress has given them power to run monetary policy. The federal reserve in general buys goverment debt and return gives the goverment federal reserve notes. They then usually would sell those goverment bonds to their primary dealers who then in turn can sell them on to the market. After the last crisis the federal reserve held on the goverment bonds to keep the price up and interest rates low in what is called QE.
Austin Morgan
cont from Trade is Supply traded for Supply but Money is not an IOU: it doesn't disappear once the trade is made. The money has become the thing most valued because of its universality. So now we are in a dystopia where value is the thing traded for the Money as if it were a thing, and it is the scarcity of money that makes for value; we are no longer in a market economy of things where the scarcity of things creates its value by what it is traded for AND the money it is traded for can be created out of thin air. Now you can't use supply and demand because the supply is not constant which means all of macroeconomics is now bullshit. You equivocated the money with the stuff that is traded, AND the money you trade for can be made by those who have money. This is evidenced in the M5: The M5 is an estimate 900 trillion dollars, but the immediate need for money to exchange goods worldwide is less than 4 trillion in a year.
Lincoln Hill
Then if everyone choose to become office leeches, who will feed them ? Who will produce valuable things that can be eaten or used to build ? Mmm ? Or maybe the current paradigm is just a big scam by clever assholes who want everything, but not work hard...
Jose Cox
all that matters is the US$. the whole world uses it as a reserve currency and all the oil is traded in it. it is practically irrelevant what other system the other currencies have, since it always comes back to the dollar
Hudson Watson
you would have to already have the cash.
Kayden Russell
>So why do banks need to be bailed out when they can loan money out of thin air? The frog is right, money is a meme. The question is why is it a meme? Wealthy people generally want more and more money, until it gives them no further satisfaction. This is the point when they seek power though control and money, or rather, currency is their tool for this task. The fed caused the great depression and (((they))), the owners of the fed bought up assets at dirt cheap prices. The crash of 08 is just preparation for the great depression vol 2.
Banks needed to be bailed to inflate the money supply, which devalues people's savings.
Matthew Gutierrez
I basically agree with you - but here's the thing - what can you do about it? If it's a shell game where you're getting conned - how do you stop playing it...?
Gavin Ortiz
Yes international traded currency are all under control of the US through the wto mafia
Sebastian Reed
They don't create money by loaning it into existence.
Investors place money into the bank and the bank loan out part of that money. The important part is that loan is held on the books of the bank, that's now debt the bank has. This means if the loan defaults (it can't be paid back) the bank has lost this money, and that in turn means if the investors took back their deposits with the bank they'd not be able to pay everyone back all of their money.
The important part of this is that you cannot study and understand this system with 1 loan, you have to understand what happens with many loans. Some default and are never paid pack, some are paid back in full plus the interest, which helps cover the failed loans, and the bank skims some profit off the top of the whole lot if they do their job right.
In fractional reserve banking, banks can lend in the same way only they do not have to have to front the entire amount of the loan, only some small percentage of it. This is where money is "created". However it's still debt on the banks books. If those loans fail the banks books are down the full amount including what money they "created"
This doesn't create more money it just allows you to make more loans at the same time, it takes the power of using investment to grow the economy and allows you to multiply it and bring more assets into existence while the total amount of money over long periods of time remains the same.
Tyler Miller
so in conclusion, money is only created through loans? the more loans there are, the worse off people who already own things are?
Sorry I definitely want to respond to this one sec...
Dominic Evans
Banks do more than just creating money, to create money, they need at least 5% of equity to be able to loan out this extra money. For every dollar of loan they give out, they need to have 5 cents as reserves to account for the bad loans if something goes bad. However when a bank has too many bad loans and people can't pay them back, then the reserves won't be enough to compensate for the losses in profits on loans. Also on a small sidenote banks loan out a lot of money to other banks too so everything is intertwined.
Hope you understand now, tried to explain it like I would explain it to a 5 year old.
You remove the ability to make money from money by using public banks. wealth is things, not money. Money is an agreement for exchange, not the exchange itself.
So you make all money have to be in a public bank where the interest that creates money is kept to the size of the economy that money creates. AND HERE'S THE BIG BENEFIT!!! NO TAXES. government and all social infrastructure is funded by the Interest on loans by the decentralized, local public banks.
Secondly you eliminate Wage and replace it with profit sharing. Wage markets cheat those who produce.
Thirdly you eliminate Stocks. the Company is not a thing to be sold; it is a thing that makes products that are traded.
Lastly you eliminate Gatekeepers. that is your renters and leasers. Ownership is all there is.
Matthew Young
There may be more to it, but the core of the problem is pretty much dealt with. Looks familiar btw...
Carson Jenkins
Kek
Jeremiah Smith
No quite. You can cut out the middle man and interest entirely if the government prints it's own fiat money.
Gavin Campbell
you are getting confused, the federal reserve and the bank of england create money by loaning it into existence
the other banks are able to use fractional reserve banking to loan out 10x as they have in reserve
Sebastian Lee
>The money has become the thing most valued because of its universality. So now we are in a dystopia where value is the thing traded for the Money as if it were a thing, and it is the scarcity of money that makes for value; we are no longer in a market economy of things where the scarcity of things creates its value by what it is traded for AND the money it is traded for can be created out of thin air.
Do you think it's possible to transition out of this system without it falling apart...? If not how bad is the disruption going to be?
Also, if you could address those impediments in terms of:
1. The actual administrative complexity of doing it. 2. The political, social and economic incentives opposed to it.
How do you see things turning out if we fail to address this issue?
Luis Bennett
>Why did they have to be bailed out if they can type money into existence out of thin air? They don't create money out of "thin air", it is always tied to something, whether it is tangible items or future earnings. during hte financial crisis, a lot of these things they where tied to collapsed and they essentially lost their money, and had no real way to create more money which could fill the gap.
Daniel Taylor
No private banks create money by loaning it into existence too - yes, they are limited in how much they can do but it's still creating debt-based money.
Alexander Morris
with some executions, it could be a glorious transition
Mason Cooper
It just boils down to intent: do you want a system that exploits, or do you want a system for Interdependence through trade? Take away private benefit from loaning money and make it a public benefit only, and you not only reduce the Divergence that crashes the economy, but you fund the society through the very same market that now is allowed to value trade by what it is traded for.
On the micro level nothing changes. The seller still controls both supply and price to maximize both the marginal and the volume profit to the constraints of cost, demand, competition, geographic marketplace, and the rule of trade. But with the new Macroeconomic environment, they can focus on supply and price and are not tempted to fuck with cost through cheating workers and moving companies to cheaper labor market, demand through deception, competition through gatekeeping, geographic marketplaces though comparative advantage, and rules through political corruption.
Robert Clark
Basically they could but they got the bailouts instead so that they could retain an air of legitimacy around the whole thing. The currency system would collapse if people figured out that the fed could do whatever it wants. This way they still printed that money but made it look as if the government gave it to them
Jonathan Taylor
No it doesn't work by killing a few people - if you kill a few people the system is still there it's just got a few vacated job positions.
