|
Post by turbonium on Jul 20, 2005 23:29:12 GMT -4
Now, the money being created by interest is still not paper money being created, which seems to be what you are saying here. How is paper or "real" money being created by charging interest? Paying down interest is done with paper money already in the system, not from any new paper money that was created.You keep insisting that paper currency is the only real money. Let's work through an example with currency and see what we can discover about currency and money in general. If there is a mistake in my thinking, it should be easier to spot: Let's say a bank loaned money to a hot dog vendor so that the vendor could open up a hot dog stand in the neighborhood. The stand becomes popular and the vendor rakes in a lot of cash making and selling hot dogs. The vendor drives to the bank every night and, for the sake of our example, makes a daily loan payment including the interest, and deposits the rest. Let's say that one night he hands in a $5 bill as his daily loan and interest payment. In the morning, one of the bank employees needs some paper clips, so he grabs a $5 bill from petty cash, which just happens to be our hot dog loan payment bill, heads to the local office supply store, and exchanges the $5 bill for paper clips. At lunch time, the store owner heads to the hot dog stand and buys lunch with the very same $5 bill. That night, the hot dog vendor pays the $5 dollar daily loan and interest fee with the same bill. If it took a year to pay off the loan, and if the bank needed paper clips every morning, and if the office supply store owner had a taste for hot dogs every day, we can imagine this same, single $5 bill being used to not only retire the loan including interest, but to pay for a year's supply of paper clips and hot dogs. The lesson here is that you do not always need to create new currency when a business borrows, grows, and repays the loan with interest. The real business going on here is the creation of goods and services and their exchange. Money is a just the medium of exchange. It factors out of the picture in the long run. Once it has done its thing for one transaction, it can do it again for another. Let that sink in for a moment: The only thing really created here are the goods and services. Your demand that paper currency has to be created in proportion to the interest is not justified. That said, it may very well be that while that $5 bill was tied up, it was not available for use elsewhere in the economy where it may have been needed. This would be the case if the economy in general grew. In that case, the economy in general develops a greater demand for money (in our example, currency, but the same concept applies to other forms of money). The second lesson is that you cannot look at just the transactions on the local level, such as only the ones in my example, and determine if more currency needs to be created. You need new currency only if there is not enough available from elsewhere in the economy. One of the functions of the Fed is to monitor economic indicators and determine if it needs to increase or decrease the national money supply to meet the needs of the economy. It does this through trading government securities, changing the discount rate, or buying more currency from the Treasury if needed. Interest charges and payments do lead to currency being created by Fed—if needed. This happens at the aggregate level, which is why you have a hard time seeing it when you narrow your focus to individual transactions. Your question, “How is paper or 'real' money being created by charging interest?” is misguided. Checks are paper money just as well as dollar bills. Once either form of money factors out of the equation, what is left standing is the “real” backing behind any money: the goods and services produced and exchanged. (And by the way, I realize my example is extremely farfetched: Anyone who works in an office knows that there is always an overabundance of paper clips in the supply cabinet and that you never need to buy any.) In your example, the bank did not loan real paper money to the hot dog vendor. It "created" it as a book entry - that is what I was pointing out to you earlier. So we immediately have created a problem. Following this, the daily loan payment (with interest) is $5. That is paid with paper or real money, that was already in circulation before his loan. And it was earned in equitable exchange for his goods & services. So when they receive his $5 there is a net loss of $5 in circulation within the economy - because the loan was a book entry loan, no paper money was loaned out, but paper money was paid back. They may put it back into circulation at the supply store, but it is the same single $5 bill that was in circulation before the hot dog vendor's loan. In the meantime, the hot dog vendor keeps making his $5 payments. But say the bank doesn't need $5 in office supplies as often as these payments are being received. Then we have further loss of paper or real money in circulation. Our hot dog guy is now finding it harder to make his $5 paper money loan payment, because the bank isn't putting the $5 bills back into circulation at the same rate. Even if the bank does buy paper clips at the same rate, the problem still only gets worse, as the people buying the hot dogs have loans of their own to pay back - and they have to keep that $5 bill for the loan payment instead of buying a hot dog. So long term, it does NOT balance out. We have a deflated economy, with paper money being scarce, and businesses are hurting for customers. Loans are called in, and the hot dog vendor cannot meet the terms of the loan. He loses his hot dog business to the bank. Now, expand that to the global economy - that is what caused the Great Depression - and it's a documented fact. The Fed did not put any paper money into circulation while it was taking in all the payments at it's member banks. And, checks are NOT the same as paper money It's a promise to pay someone money. You can write a check to buy something, or to pay a bill. But it is worthless unless you have the paper money that fulfills the promise to pay you made writing out a check.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 20, 2005 23:43:15 GMT -4
[ Why am I supposed to accept, as confirmation of oft-repeated anonymous arguments shared among right-wing conspiracy theorists, another oft-repeated argument shared among right-wing conspiracy theorists? Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report,Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.Luckily I've been able to verify that the citation refers to an actual publication that is available at a library near me. So hopefully shortly I'll be able to do what you and John Kotmair didn't do: read the original source. That's funny -I thought it was a "libertarian conspiracy theory"! ;D The Rothschild ownership issue is not the point - it is whether or not it is being controlled by private interests at all. Like I said, I don't care if they are Grey Aliens who are the primary controlling group - I only want them dismantled.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 21, 2005 0:05:42 GMT -4
[ The "patriot" movement is composed of various mixtures of anti-taxation advocates, militias, and white supremacists. They do not, in general, represent accurate or credible sources of of information on U.S. history and policy. There's a real pigeonhole! How do you come to the conclusion that if one is against ever-increasing taxes that they are mostly without credibility? And then you bunch anti-tax advocates in with neo-nazis and vigilante gorups! Your stereotyping here is no better than the "white supremacists" who bunch together everyone who isn't white as un-American and worthless. Just because I want less tax and elimination of interest charges, doesn't mean I have this incredible urge to burn a cross on the front lawn of my East Indian neighbor!!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2005 9:56:02 GMT -4
I pointed out that these were generally dissimilar groups. That is not stereotyping, although all tend to overuse the title "patriot" referring to their members. I do not claim that all organizations share the same agenda. But the important thing these "patriots" have in common is the propensity to share each other's arguments without any thought toward verification.
You claimed the Fed was inappropriately controlled. You were asked to provide evidence for inappropriate private control, and all you've provided are more unverified claims. I do not accept these protest organizations -- regardless of their specific agenda -- as authorities on government precisely because they simply repeat each other's unreliable claims without verification and do little or no original research. Some of those organizations may draw the conclusion from your last specific quote that the Jews have disproportionate control over the U.S. Others may draw the conclusion that supposedly public monetary policy is controlled privately. I don't attempt to unify the conclusions that they draw. I consider only that none of these organizations did the research necessary to verify the basis of their individual claims.
Consider that your last site's argument is a Trojan horse: some anonymous author's personal claim given under color of an objective citation. Consider that it is internally inconsistent and may have been miscopied or altered. Consider that John Kotmair presents it as authoritative when in fact all he did is to cut and paste it verbatim from some other web site. Why would you ask me to trust such evidence?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 22, 2005 1:52:03 GMT -4
I pointed out that these were generally dissimilar groups. That is not stereotyping, although all tend to overuse the title "patriot" referring to their members. I do not claim that all organizations share the same agenda. But the important thing these "patriots" have in common is the propensity to share each other's arguments without any thought toward verification. You claimed the Fed was inappropriately controlled. You were asked to provide evidence for inappropriate private control, and all you've provided are more unverified claims. I do not accept these protest organizations -- regardless of their specific agenda -- as authorities on government precisely because they simply repeat each other's unreliable claims without verification and do little or no original research. Some of those organizations may draw the conclusion from your last specific quote that the Jews have disproportionate control over the U.S. Others may draw the conclusion that supposedly public monetary policy is controlled privately. I don't attempt to unify the conclusions that they draw. I consider only that none of these organizations did the research necessary to verify the basis of their individual claims. Consider that your last site's argument is a Trojan horse: some anonymous author's personal claim given under color of an objective citation. Consider that it is internally inconsistent and may have been miscopied or altered. Consider that John Kotmair presents it as authoritative when in fact all he did is to cut and paste it verbatim from some other web site. Why would you ask me to trust such evidence? I didn't notice you pointing out that these are dissimilar groups. Neither do I notice any sharing of arguments (can't say I've perused neo-nazi sites before!). I've posted info from a wide range of sites, and I don't see a particular 'agenda' they have in common, other than the abolishment of the Fed. That's all I am discussing and concerned about anyway. If a site I link to has other issues it discusses, that's their mandate, not mine. The Fed does have inappropriate private control, and I have shown that to be true through the fact that the Fed system is comprised of 12 privately owned Federal Reserve regional banks. It's not unverified - even the Fed website admits to it. You say you will verify the claims made by John Kotmair yourself regarding the 94th Congress' Federal Reserve - Study of Corporate and Banking Influence, as it's available at your library. Well, we can then prove that the conclusions reached by Kotmair are either right or wrong. I would be most interested in any postings you can provide with the full transcripts of this study, as my local libraries do not have this available. I will see if I can find it at a larger central library, as Iiving in a small town leaves me without full Gov't resource materials.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2005 12:42:14 GMT -4
Neither do I notice any sharing of arguments...
But have you looked for the sharing of arguments? The rest of us see this all the time. You don't notice the nature of the scholarship because you apparently don't investigate the reliability of your sources.
Conspiracy theorists use references merely to shift the responsibility for their own arguments onto someone else. That's not a proper use of cited authority. The intent of citing sources is to establish authority for a claim. That is accomplished only when the citation refers to something that is authoritative, not merely documentation of where someone else has said it.
can't say I've perused neo-nazi sites before!
You have; you just didn't recognize them as such. This is why you need to real all sources, not just those sympathetic to your point of view.
I've posted info from a wide range of sites, and I don't see a particular 'agenda' they have in common, other than the abolishment of the Fed.
I specifically said they don't have the same agenda. I said they use the same basic arguments. I also said they all tend to label themselves "patriot", but that's largely immaterial at this point. The argument in this case is an allegation of inappropriate private control of the Fed. From that you can argue a variety of dissimilar (and perhaps even contradictory) ultimate conclusions. John Kotmair uses the implications of this argument to support the contention that U.S. taxation is wrong because the proceeds are controlled privately for private gain. White supremacists use the same passage -- noting that the accused owners are likely Jewish -- to support their contention that there is inappropriate Jewish control of monetary policy worldwide. Militias use the passage to argue that the government is corrupt and should be overthrown.
It is not where these authors take that passage that matters here; it matters where they got it from. None of these site authors seems to have done any original research in obtaining, verifying, and interpreting this information. This practice is not limited to this one claim, or even to the "patriot" movement. UFO enthusiasts also routinely cut and paste from each other's web sites.
When indiscriminate cutting and pasting occurs, the apparently wide variety of places where you can find the identical passage does not establish the passage as authoritative. It establishes merely that these authors have very, very poor scholarship habits. That is what makes them poor authorities. John Kotmair has absolutely no personal knowledge that his quotation is legitimate, nor can he say where the commentary comes from.
If a site I link to has other issues it discusses, that's their mandate, not mine.
You're thoroughly missing the point.
It is not the conclusions of these sites that makes them unreliable. They are unreliable because of the ways in which they go about supporting whatever point of view they have. They share the practice of indiscriminately copying information among themselves, with no thought taken to discovering whether the information is true or applicable.
Therefore I strongly suggest you stop letting them direct your thinking. They obviously took no thought about the validity of their sources. Why should you trust them?
The Fed does have inappropriate private control, and I have shown that to be true through the fact that the Fed system is comprised of 12 privately owned Federal Reserve regional banks.
You have shown that the 12 constituent Federal Reserve banks are owned by other banks. You have not given any evidence that these allegedly private banks exercise inappropriate or clandestine control over the Fed. You have not, in fact, shown any evidence that these institutions are governed any differently than other corporations in the United States.
Private ownership, in whole or in part, is not evidence per se of "inappropriate" control. Control is not inappropriate simply because it may be private. If Tom's Bank and Harry's Bank are both members and shareholders of some Federal Reserve bank, then we expect that they are in the same market and therefore competitors. Even if each shareholder bank acts greedily in its own interest in how it participates in governing the Fed, that all balances out. In the opposite case you have Tom and Harry getting together in some smoky backroom and planning how they're collectively going to control monetary policy by pooling their influence -- a proposal for wholesale collusion in the banking industry. In that case they hardly need have created the Fed in order to do that. Your argument is implausible on its face in one case, and irrelevant in the other.
You say you will verify the claims made by John Kotmair yourself...
No, that is not what I said. If you wish me to accept John Kotmair as an authority, then you have the burden of proof to establish him as one. I have given you reasons why I cannot implicitly accept him as an authority. Add to this the fact that he is a convicted felon.
Well, we can then prove that the conclusions reached by Kotmair are either right or wrong.
You misunderstand on several levels.
First, Kotmair didn't draw those conclusions. They are someone else's conclusions which he has cut and pasted into his website. Just because his site was the first one you encountered that reproduced this material doesn't make him the originator of it.
Second, I have no burden of proof here. If you wish me to accept Kotmair as an authority, you must establish him as one. If you wish me to accept the anonymous analysis that accompanies the reproduction of the charts, then you must find the original source for it and establish its authority.
If I happen not to make it to the library this week, or if the book is not there, that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to prove the authority of your sources.
I would be most interested in any postings you can provide with the full transcripts of this study...
Nice try. I have no intention of typing the report into the computer or posting lengthy excerpts from it. I will not do your homework for you. It is not my responsibility to provide you with the contents of your citations in the manner you suggest, or in any manner whatsoever. Your reference to that material suggests that you were already familiar with its contents. It is not my fault that you are not, nor is it my responsibility to rectify that fault.
But I will verify the existence of the source and I can verify whether the charts appear in the source as claimed and have been accurately reproduced. I can also verify whether the context of the charts is as implied in the analysis.
Since the analysis -- the text portion of your web site reference -- is not part of the Congressional record, there is no need to refer to the book in question to confirm or refute it. The analysis is what claims the charts in question establish ownership (as opposed to some other relationship) and alleges that this is inappropriate and private. Thus is it really the anonymous commentary that begs to be confirmed since that's where the meat of the argument lies. And that's your job.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 22, 2005 22:03:03 GMT -4
In the meantime, the hot dog vendor keeps making his $5 payments. But say the bank doesn't need $5 in office supplies as often as these payments are being received. Then we have further loss of paper or real money in circulation.
This discussion is in need of a real economist. You are trying to work through these transactions using just your intuition, so you have no way of knowing when you are going about it wrong. I'll try my best to point out areas you are overlooking...
The cash flowing into the bank forms a pool of currency that the bank can release back into the system. Somebody who needs currency could write a check to "Cash" for $5 and hand it to the bank. Simplifying the accounting here, the bank could deposit the check in its own account and hand back $5 in cash taken from the same account. In other words, the cash is not tied up. It can be released with a keystroke or two.
Our hot dog guy is now finding it harder to make his $5 paper money loan payment, because the bank isn't putting the $5 bills back into circulation at the same rate.
The hot dog guy was not finding it harder to pay the $5, though. He is doing well selling hot dogs and has a good cash flow. One of the main points of my example was to show that you don't necessarily need to increase the currency supply by $5. As long as there is enough to meet the needs of the economy at that moment in time, then business can proceed as usual. If the economy grows across the board and currency does start to get scarce, the Fed will let more into the system.
Furthermore, the vendor likely would have conducted market research before he borrowed the money. He would try to make sure that he could pay off the loan. The bank would have looked into this too. They are not going to want to loan money to somebody that will have a hard time paying it back.
Even if the bank does buy paper clips at the same rate, the problem still only gets worse, as the people buying the hot dogs have loans of their own to pay back - and they have to keep that $5 bill for the loan payment instead of buying a hot dog.
Again, if the demand for currency rises, the Fed will get more of it into the system.
So long term, it does NOT balance out.
It does balance out. The money supply does grow larger over time, after all. Plus, you don't have to match checks with currency, dollar for dollar. Many transactions can be carried out entirely by check.
We have a deflated economy, with paper money being scarce, and businesses are hurting for customers. Loans are called in, and the hot dog vendor cannot meet the terms of the loan. He loses his hot dog business to the bank. Now, expand that to the global economy - that is what caused the Great Depression - and it's a documented fact. The Fed did not put any paper money into circulation while it was taking in all the payments at it's member banks.
The Great Depression was the result of reality giving everyone a swift kick in the ass because of all the credit buildup of the 20s. (And yes, that is the fault of the Fed.) That cannot go on forever and printing up money would only bring about another swift kick from reality in the form of inflation.
And, checks are NOT the same as paper money It's a promise to pay someone money. You can write a check to buy something, or to pay a bill. But it is worthless unless you have the paper money that fulfills the promise to pay you made writing out a check.
People value checks and money because of the goods and services they can purchase with them.
It is the rare person who converts all the checks he receives to currency. This means that a bank, or the economy as a whole, does not need to store enough currency to back every outstanding check. It needs only enough to meet the demands for currency that actually materialize at any given time.
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a JayUtah-style example that illustrates what you are overlooking, but let me try this: A restaurant does not necessarily need a new glass for every customer it serves over its lifetime. As long as it can return used glasses to kitchen and clean them fast enough, over its lifetime, it can supply a very large number of customers with glasses from only a small stock of them. The currency supply functions much the same way.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 23, 2005 0:38:00 GMT -4
Joe, I have an example to show how the system is inherently skewed to the benefit of the banks.
Imagine yourself in a poker or dice game where everyone must buy the chips (the medium of exchange) from a "banker" who does not risk chips in the game.
He just watches the table and reaches in every hour to take 10 percent to 15 percent of all the chips on the table (interest charges). As the game goes on, the amount of chips in the possession of each player will fluctuate according to his luck.
However, the total number of chips available to play the game (carry on trade and business) will decrease steadily.
As the game starts getting low on chips, some players will run out. If they want to continue to play, they must buy or borrow more chips from the "banker". The "banker" will sell (lend) them only if the player signs a "mortgage" agreeing to give the "Banker" some real property (car, home, farm, business, etc.) if he cannot make periodic payments to pay back all the chips plus some extra chips (interest). The payments must be made on time, whether he wins (makes a profit) or not.
It is easy to see that no matter how skillfully they play, eventually the "banker" will end up with all of his original chips back, and except for the very best players, the rest, if they stay in long enough, will lose to the "banker" their homes, their farms, their businesses, perhaps even their cars, watches, and the shirts off their backs!
And the Great Depression was the result of the Fed cutting off the money supply in sirculation - it was intentionally done. The money flowed again for the war machine just as intentionally. The banks didn't overextend credit and then things just happened to collapse. The Fed purposely stopped putting new money into circulation! THAT is what caused the depression. Putting money into circulation would not have created inflation, it would have restored the economy. Inflation is the result of the "book entry money" that devalues the dollar with the interest scam.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 23, 2005 11:10:09 GMT -4
Imagine yourself in a poker or dice game where everyone must buy the chips (the medium of exchange) from a "banker" who does not risk chips in the game.
He just watches the table and reaches in every hour to take 10 percent to 15 percent of all the chips on the table (interest charges).
Your example is not an analog of the economy, but of only one narrow segment of it. The example has no true analog of a banker either. The real economy is comprised of agents, each of whom is both a producer and a consumer. The value of what one can consume depends on the value of what can produce. (Perhaps this is what the conspiracy theorists are really fighting: a system where one's well-being is dependent on one's intelligence and industriousness.)
Your example models a producer, the casino owner, who provides the service of entertainment to a group of consumers, the gamblers at the table. The gamblers trade the efforts of their prior labors for a fun night out with the boys and a chance to walk away with some of their money. Your example is purposely narrowed to consider only a single direction of money (or chip) flow, so of course it looks like the casino owner will end up with everything.
Because this is just entertainment for the gamblers, and unless they are addicted to gambling, their demand for entertainment will be limited. At some point, they will have had their fill and will leave the table.
Let's say they all leave once the casino owner has acquired all the chips. The gamblers received a night's entertainment. But what has the casino owner acquired? Just a bunch of chips! On the way out, the farmer says to him, "Hey, good luck getting nourishment from those chips!" The roofer tells him, "You might be able fix that leak in the roof by jamming some of those chips into the cracks." The tailor suggests, "I don't know if you will be able to make a warm coat for the winter with those chips, but you might be able to cobble together some sort of hat."
In the actual economy, the banker is both a producer and a consumer. The banker's function is to bridge the gap between savers and borrowers, to direct the resources supplied by the savers to those who need to use them temporarily. From his profits, he pays expenses, the stockholders, and raises his family in a nice house. The borrowers are not just consumers as in your example. They will try to increase production from the borrowed money. They will try to create something that didn't exist before in the form of economic goods and services. There is no net loss the economy precisely because of this increased production.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 24, 2005 7:43:41 GMT -4
Imagine yourself in a poker or dice game where everyone must buy the chips (the medium of exchange) from a "banker" who does not risk chips in the game.
He just watches the table and reaches in every hour to take 10 percent to 15 percent of all the chips on the table (interest charges).Your example is not an analog of the economy, but of only one narrow segment of it. The example has no true analog of a banker either. The real economy is comprised of agents, each of whom is both a producer and a consumer. The value of what one can consume depends on the value of what can produce. (Perhaps this is what the conspiracy theorists are really fighting: a system where one's well-being is dependent on one's intelligence and industriousness.) Your example models a producer, the casino owner, who provides the service of entertainment to a group of consumers, the gamblers at the table. The gamblers trade the efforts of their prior labors for a fun night out with the boys and a chance to walk away with some of their money. Your example is purposely narrowed to consider only a single direction of money (or chip) flow, so of course it looks like the casino owner will end up with everything. Because this is just entertainment for the gamblers, and unless they are addicted to gambling, their demand for entertainment will be limited. At some point, they will have had their fill and will leave the table. Let's say they all leave once the casino owner has acquired all the chips. The gamblers received a night's entertainment. But what has the casino owner acquired? Just a bunch of chips! On the way out, the farmer says to him, "Hey, good luck getting nourishment from those chips!" The roofer tells him, "You might be able fix that leak in the roof by jamming some of those chips into the cracks." The tailor suggests, "I don't know if you will be able to make a warm coat for the winter with those chips, but you might be able to cobble together some sort of hat." In the actual economy, the banker is both a producer and a consumer. The banker's function is to bridge the gap between savers and borrowers, to direct the resources supplied by the savers to those who need to use them temporarily. From his profits, he pays expenses, the stockholders, and raises his family in a nice house. The borrowers are not just consumers as in your example. They will try to increase production from the borrowed money. They will try to create something that didn't exist before in the form of economic goods and services. There is no net loss the economy precisely because of this increased production. Actually, and maybe it's my fault for not detailing enough, the poker game is meant to be an analogy for our everyday interacting and conducting business. I didn't mean the poker game in the literal sense of a night's entertainment., but rather as the actual economic system we are in today. It isn't a "game" we can just up and leave, so the poker game was meant to be the game of every day life, one that you have no choice but to play all your life. That's why the banker ends up with goods of actual value: the players' homes, businesses, etc. As you also are posting analogies to simplify your argument, I think I'll post a link to a well-known story that breaks the current system down into its most basic functions to illustrate the fundamental flaws of this system, which lead to the one inevitable result - it eventually makes all of us the poor majority and the bankers the rich minority. It's called Salvation Island, and I hope you find the time to read it (if you haven't before). I think it's a perfect story to point out in a simple way how our current system is operating and why it should, actually it must, be changed asap to create a healthy prosperous nation. It explains our basic system really well, and makes the reasons for our problems crystal clear. www.votefraud.org/money_myth_exploded.htm
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 24, 2005 9:57:03 GMT -4
I think it's a perfect story to point out in a simple way how our current system is operating and why it should, actually it must, be changed asap to create a healthy prosperous nation.
Oh, gee, a story about "a refugee from war-torn, central Europe". I wonder what ethnic group that could be?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 24, 2005 10:10:50 GMT -4
Actually, and maybe it's my fault for not detailing enough, the poker game is meant to be an analogy for our everyday interacting and conducting business. I didn't mean the poker game in the literal sense of a night's entertainment., but rather as the actual economic system we are in today. It isn't a "game" we can just up and leave, so the poker game was meant to be the game of every day life, one that you have no choice but to play all your life. That's why the banker ends up with goods of actual value: the players' homes, businesses, etc. I think Joe Durnavich's point was that the banker is also playing the "poker game":
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 25, 2005 1:02:21 GMT -4
I think it's a perfect story to point out in a simple way how our current system is operating and why it should, actually it must, be changed asap to create a healthy prosperous nation. Oh, gee, a story about "a refugee from war-torn, central Europe". I wonder what ethnic group that could be? The point of the story is not any "ethnic group", rather that it is our current economic system. Did you stop reading because that should somehow make a difference? Substitute it with "Bill the Banker" if that makes you more comfortable with the story.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 25, 2005 1:03:40 GMT -4
Actually, and maybe it's my fault for not detailing enough, the poker game is meant to be an analogy for our everyday interacting and conducting business. I didn't mean the poker game in the literal sense of a night's entertainment., but rather as the actual economic system we are in today. It isn't a "game" we can just up and leave, so the poker game was meant to be the game of every day life, one that you have no choice but to play all your life. That's why the banker ends up with goods of actual value: the players' homes, businesses, etc. I think Joe Durnavich's point was that the banker is also playing the "poker game": The anaogy still holds up - the banker is the money creator/issuer.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 25, 2005 10:33:13 GMT -4
The point of the story is not any "ethnic group", rather that it is our current economic system. Did you stop reading because that should somehow make a difference? Substitute it with "Bill the Banker" if that makes you more comfortable with the story.
I will not help you disguise anti-Semitic propaganda. The story that you find "perfect" is of a Jewish banker who, the propaganda tries to con the reader into believing, steals all the wealth on the island. The propaganda further tries to make the reader feel justified in wanting to take an axe to the Jewish banker.
I am not sure we should be giving such garbage a seat at this table.
In case anyone doesn't see the fallacy that turbonium fails to see, consider the real dire straights the banker is in. He has landed on an island already fully owned by others who landed on the island before him. From the moment he sets foot on the island, he is in debt to the islanders. He is desperately in need of the means of survival, and if he does set up a banking system, it would not be to steal from them, but to create an economic service that he can trade for the goods he needs to live.
In the story, the banker loans his money and waits for a lump sum payment of the principal plus interest. If turbonium wants to stick to that story, I would say the islanders have nothing to worry about. The banker will starve to death or succumb to the elements before the payments are due.
A more likely scenario might be one where the banker asks for payments in installments. As the money flows back into the bank, he can use it to purchase the goods he needs to survive. That gets the money back in the hands of islanders who can use it for future payments on the loan.
Why turbonium's story is not a model of any real economy is that the money supply does not circulate in it. The story tries to makes money valuable to everyone but the banker, which is not the case in real life.
When Oliver (the banker) stepped on the island, we can imagine that productive resources were fully occupied in meeting the needs of the islanders. There is nothing left over for Oliver. What Oliver needs to make happen is for production to increase. In the story, his banking system doubles production. That creates enough extra goods for him to purchase, and as a bonus, makes everyone else better off. Does that make Oliver the banker a true angel? I would say so.
|
|