How money is created

[maple_leafs182]

The conspiracy is grand.

They must find it difficult...Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.

In order to see it you must be a political atheist, don't believe anything any government tells you.

Don't believe corporate news will tell you the full story. News channels do not report news, they create the news, there is a difference.

The conspiracy is all about controlling the population, and they are doing a great job at it.

This isn't freedom.

Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pictuiary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

How they control us, they keep us living in fear and they keep us trapped us in greed.

We worry too much about our ego's.

Who cares who has the biggest army or strongest economy in the world, this isn't a competition.

Edited April 10, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[maple_leafs182]

double post*

Edited April 10, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[Pliny]

Sorry for the Nobel Prize winner citation. I too agree that a Nobel Prize generally means little more than a glance, to see if there is something more. In the case of Friedman and Krugman, I think so. Both are/were intelligent men who understand economic theory well.

I only give some consideration to Friedman because I think he understood all the economic theories and only propounded his monetarist theories because he honestly believed in the goodness of humanity.

Krugman on the other hand seems to view that there is a necessity for control of the masses and because of their general stupidity and if left to their own devices, chaos would reign. Since he understands this, while many don't, his importance to the world is simply a matter of record.

Commercial value for stones/gold? What do you mean by "commercial value"?

It's value as concerns the Jeweler or the industrialist, finding it necessary to their livelihood.

The commercial value of gold (assuming it exists) does not support a price of $1000/ounce. The price of gold is based on the belief of millions of people, if not billions, that by holding gold, they have a guarantee of a claim on real assets that they may need in the future.

Well, gold is not just a "claim" on real assets. It is, in and of itself, a real asset.

It's value being determined only by it's supply and demand as any other commodity's value is determined. Your pronouncement that it does not support a price of $1000/oz. is only your opinion. It is the opinion of many that it is worth more. The truth lies not in your opinion, but in the use of the information.

Trade naturally leads to saving.

[/quote}

If by that you mean, trade satisfies needs and the satisfaction of needs is accomplished by trade, then I agree savings will increase. Needs, having been met, reduce one's necessity for trade. Convenience and comfort may be the next reason for trade.

Babysitting coop? Well, what happens when people suddenly believe that their gold has no claim on anything?

Then it only has it's commercial value, if there is any. But it is used as money for several reasons, and one is that it has never been worth zero.

(As I asked previously, what would happen if some country suddenly discovered/announced that it had a new huge gold mine?)

Then prices would inflate as soon as the new gold entered the market. Inflating the money supply is inflating the money supply.

IOW, what happens when many people simultaneously decide to shift one form of saving into another?

It wasn't instantaneously decided that gold or silver or anything was going to be the form of saving. It was an evolutionary process. "Simultaneous" means, all at the same time. If people simultaneously decided that then that would mean someone convinced them or forced them to change all at once. A shift like that to be valid and sustainable would take time.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I hope I have opened your eyes with my last post. Maybe not, it's Friday and after Happy Hour!

No, not really. You didn't open my eyes, but I largely agree with your points.

Governments grow out of the desire in individuals to control and dictate the actions of others - not only when it comes to resources or population, but for reasons of morality etc.

You're right, though, central control isn't desirable, nor is complete anarchy. Humans evolved in small groups, and as such human organization works best within a dynamic that allows for natural conflict, differences, co-operation.

What few people seem to realize is that all political organizations of a certain era play out as a sort of topology that overlays basic human nature. With our current situation, we're faced with decentralized communication - and the challenge to central authority that that brings - as well as balancing out the economic boon with globalization and other such challenges.

IMO the ultimate end of humanity is a collection of small but happy tribes, living in a garden of plenty...

[Michael Hardner]

The conspiracy is all about controlling the population, and they are doing a great job at it.

This isn't freedom.

There is less conspiracy in the world than there is negligence. There is no conspiracy required to create litter in the city - just many people who don`t care enough to do their part. This is an analogy that applies to much of civic affairs.

Healthcare, the legal and social system - they`re all good enough but they`re all in a state of neglect.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There is less conspiracy in the world than there is negligence. There is no conspiracy required to create litter in the city - just many people who don`t care enough to do their part. This is an analogy that applies to much of civic affairs.

Healthcare, the legal and social system - they`re all good enough but they`re all in a state of neglect.

Then they are not really good enough, are they?

[Michael Hardner]

Then they are not really good enough, are they?

Not good enough for me,no. Good enough for most people, though.

I have been trying to start up some new civic groups to talk about institutions such as healthcare but I haven`t had success. I tried to set up similar groups online on these types of boards but didn`t get enough interest. Admittedly, I only have a little time for such a thing myself but even a small group could be an interesting exercise.

[Bonam]

Commercial value for stones/gold? What do you mean by "commercial value"? The commercial value of gold (assuming it exists) does not support a price of $1000/ounce. The price of gold is based on the belief of millions of people, if not billions, that by holding gold, they have a guarantee of a claim on real assets that they may need in the future.

Only about 40% of the demand for gold comes from people purchasing it for investment/saving. 50% comes from demand for its use in jewelery and decorations, and a further 10% is for industrial use. If people (for some unknown reason) stopped wanting gold for investment purposes, it would retain a substantial portion of its value based on the demand from other sectors.

Babysitting coop? Well, what happens when people suddenly believe that their gold has no claim on anything? (As I asked previously, what would happen if some country suddenly discovered/announced that it had a new huge gold mine?)

The discovery of an extra gold mine, however large, would not leave gold valueless. Any realistic discovery could only reduce the value of gold by a small percentage. There is significant expense in extraction and refinement, and furthermore it is likely that any country or company that made such a discovery would release the gold at a slow enough rate that it would not crash the gold price (similar to how OPEC limits the supply of oil to try to keep its price up).

Edited April 10, 2010 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Where did Allen go? I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that not only is interest paid on loans, but people receive interest when they save. That's where the money comes from to pay off the interest. The difference between the two is how the banks make money. So it's not 1 = 1 + A. It's 1 + (B + C) = 1 + A, where (B + C) = A. A being the interest paid on loans, B being the interest paid on savings, and C being part of the revenues of banks. It would also seem that the purpose of banks and financial institutions is to drain wealth from the rest of the system.

Edited April 10, 2010 by cybercoma

[Pliny]

Governments grow out of the desire in individuals to control and dictate the actions of others - not only when it comes to resources or population, but for reasons of morality etc.

They may grow out of that desire for control and power but they are only given any power because they provide some security and safety. Engineering society is an extension of their original mandate.

You're right, though, central control isn't desirable, nor is complete anarchy. Humans evolved in small groups, and as such human organization works best within a dynamic that allows for natural conflict, differences, co-operation.

Agreed.

What few people seem to realize is that all political organizations of a certain era play out as a sort of topology that overlays basic human nature. With our current situation, we're faced with decentralized communication - and the challenge to central authority that that brings - as well as balancing out the economic boon with globalization and other such challenges.

We should exercise caution in enacting legislation. It seems legislation is far too short-sighted without the means to correct it or make adaptations to everchanging circumstances. But, in my view, most of the problems of society relating to it's evolution can be dealt with without legislation if the government is doing it's job of providing security, i.e., - Ensuring the sanctity of person and property.

IMO the ultimate end of humanity is a collection of small but happy tribes, living in a garden of plenty...

That's your ideal. We could work towards that but I think that is called heaven. I think we need more challenges than heaven or your ideal provides. We just need to keep finding new things to strive for which is why I don't like the totalitarian state or the concept of heaven. There is no where to go from there.

[Pliny]

Where did Allen go? I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that not only is interest paid on loans, but people receive interest when they save. That's where the money comes from to pay off the interest. The difference between the two is how the banks make money. So it's not 1 = 1 + A. It's 1 + (B + C) = 1 + A, where (B + C) = A. A being the interest paid on loans, B being the interest paid on savings, and C being part of the revenues of banks.

The interest people receive is just more money created.

It would also seem that the purpose of banks and financial institutions is to drain wealth from the rest of the system.

Under a fiat currency system, I believe this to be true.

[Michael Hardner]

That's your ideal. We could work towards that but I think that is called heaven. I think we need more challenges than heaven or your ideal provides. We just need to keep finding new things to strive for which is why I don't like the totalitarian state or the concept of heaven. There is no where to go from there.

Well, we're really off topic now. But why do we 'need' to find challenges when our system is about defeating them ? Maybe we need to put them back in.

We can strive to challenge ourselves, and to try our best.

You can dislike heaven all you want, but you can't stop it from happening.

[maple_leafs182]

There is no "grand" conspiracy. The Illuminati, the Rosicrucians, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, etc. are all distractions. That men will conspire is a given. There is an elite that rule and for the most part their "management organization" keeps them at arms distance from the public. The management organization is basically the banking and governmental organizations that are extant in the world and are entirely accessible by anyone. There is no need to find hidden symbology, inner sanctums of Satanic exaltation or Alien reptilian influences.

Because you present the issue of "conspiracy theory" as valid you discredit yourself.

One could say there is a conspiracy and be correct. The conspiracy however is to maintain the status quo of the heirarchical structure and nothing more.

I believe that several experiments of the governance of civilization and the populaces of the world have been made and it has been found that a central authority is not the best form of governance. However, governance, by it's very definition, is the directing of society and there cannot be a total abandonment of governance to the individual. Some balance must be found. The size of the populace of the world along with the perceived limited non-renewable resources make the subject of governance of the utmost importance but we have found that dictatorial governance is not the best method to achieve the goals of the "conspiracists", who are concerned that "their" natural resources are being depleted and there are too many people in the world. From those two simplistic concepts - too many people, not enough resources - we can see the whole reason for the policies and programs of governments. The whole carbon tax or carbon credit scheme is all about the depletion of resources and the control of development. The whole promotion of procreation is about curtailing population growth through, abortion, contraception, homosexuality and whatever will encourage it's curtailment. That these two areas appear to be the prime concern of governments is not odd. Among the myriad of issues, most relate back to the concerns of population growth and resource depletion.

Governments should not be concerned about such things and it is odd that they are. They attempt to make the concerns of the "elite" the concerns of the general populace. This way it looks as though it is what the public wants and not what is being dictated by the ruling elites who must appear to be at arms length of government.

I don't believe in reptilian or anything like that.

You acknowledge that there are elites that control/manipulate the government to get what they want and that isn't a conspiracy?

Is that not a big issue.

And as for the carbon tax, this is my view.

We pay Provincial tax, we pay Federal tax and the carbon tax would be the first World tax.

What happens to a government when money starts raking in, it expands. World government.

There are reasons why problems like poverty and gangs don't go away. The elite don't want those problems solved. They aren't unsolvable problems.

They need us dependent on them.

Where did Allen go? I was thinking about this today and it occurred to me that not only is interest paid on loans, but people receive interest when they save. That's where the money comes from to pay off the interest. The difference between the two is how the banks make money. So it's not 1 = 1 + A. It's 1 + (B + C) = 1 + A, where (B + C) = A. A being the interest paid on loans, B being the interest paid on savings, and C being part of the revenues of banks. It would also seem that the purpose of banks and financial institutions is to drain wealth from the rest of the system.

I'm pretty sure Allen was right, its 1 = 1 + A.

The interest you get paid on for your savings is money the bank already owns. The interest on the loaned money however is new money created out of thin air.

1(The dollar loaned from the bank) = 1(the dollar payed back to the bank) + A(The interest, new money created out of thin air)

Not to mention the dollar loaned from the bank was created out of thin air as well.

Its an unbalanced equation

There is not enough money in circulation to pay off the total amount of debt. We live in a system of perpetual debt.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe in reptilian or anything like that.

You acknowledge that there are elites that control/manipulate the government to get what they want and that isn't a conspiracy?

Is that not a big issue.

They do it in full view of the cameras. In fact, they lobby the public to empathize with them and the public does.

There are reasons why problems like poverty and gangs don't go away. The elite don't want those problems solved. They aren't unsolvable problems.

They need us dependent on them.

Maybe it's better to phrase this as "the elite doesn't care about these problems because they're not affected by them" or "the elite doesn't understand these problems" - even better.

Its an unbalanced equation

There is not enough money in circulation to pay off the total amount of debt. We live in a system of perpetual debt.

But it is possible to live one's life without debt, or to choose to enter into debt as well.

[maple_leafs182]

They do it in full view of the cameras. In fact, they lobby the public to empathize with them and the public does.

They manipulate us and that is wrong, and not everything is done in front of cameras.

Maybe it's better to phrase this as "the elite doesn't care about these problems because they're not affected by them" or "the elite doesn't understand these problems" - even better.

They know how to solve these problems, I know how to solve these problems, they do not want the problems solved, they need us to fear so we look to them to help us. It has always been about controlling the population, not making life better for everyone. Look throughout history, has it not always been about controlling the population, from Pharaohs to The Fuhrer.

To get rid of gangs all we have to do is legalize drugs across the bored. If gangs don't have product to sell, then they will cease to exist. I know people still bootleg cigarette and this will continue with other drugs bot no where near the scale it is now.

But it is possible to live one's life without debt, or to choose to enter into debt as well.

True, but thats not my point, the system is broken.

We never question the system we are born into, we really should.

[Michael Hardner]

They know how to solve these problems, I know how to solve these problems, they do not want the problems solved, they need us to fear so we look to them to help us. It has always been about controlling the population, not making life better for everyone. Look throughout history, has it not always been about controlling the population, from Pharaohs to The Fuhrer.

To get rid of gangs all we have to do is legalize drugs across the bored. If gangs don't have product to sell, then they will cease to exist. I know people still bootleg cigarette and this will continue with other drugs bot no where near the scale it is now.

People don't want legalized drugs. It didn't work in Amsterdam either, did it ?

There's no magic solution. There are approaches that might work, many involve spending a lot of money which, again, people don't want to do.

[bloodyminded]

You acknowledge that there are elites that control/manipulate the government to get what they want and that isn't a conspiracy?

Is that not a big issue.

We're really talking about institutional factors, so very little actual conspiracy is even needed.

Wealthy and powerful interests will quite naturally attempt first to maintain, then to expand their wealth and power. This is not a total universal, but it si broadly true. However, because they are complex human beings living awithin a complex social organization, a lot of competing factors come into play.

For example, I consider the Cold War, in a broad view, to be something of a farce, at least as it was (and remains, to a lesser extent) sold to the public (ie the Forces of Freedom battling Tyranny, etc). And yet there were powerful, influential leadership elements who undoubtedly wholeheartedly believed it.

You don't need much conspiracy to rule. Nations and their relationships are set up, institutionally, to behave as they do.

[maple_leafs182]

People don't want legalized drugs. It didn't work in Amsterdam either, did it ?

There's no magic solution. There are approaches that might work, many involve spending a lot of money which, again, people don't want to do.

Then I guess Thomas Jefferson is right.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%"

It's a matter of freedom and liberty. The governments role is not to choose what liberties and freedoms we can have, their role is to protect all of our liberties. Life is yours, nobody should be telling you how to live it or what you can and can't do to your body.

I'm not encouraging you to go and get high, but if you want to you should be allowed to.

Look at the 60's-70's with the hippies, they didn't want war or government control, all they wanted was peace, freedom and love. The people in charge saw this and had to eliminate the threat to their power structure. That's why we now fight a War on Drugs.

No government should have the power to tell you how to live your life.

And yes it would eliminate the problem of gangs, they cannot operate if they don't have money. Unless we legalized it and they went legit then they would be fighting in the court rooms instead of the streets.

We're really talking about institutional factors, so very little actual conspiracy is even needed.

It is still a group of people conspiring together against another group of people.

You don't need much conspiracy to rule. Nations and their relationships are set up, institutionally, to behave as they do.

Exactly. that is the conspiracy, the entire system is designed to work as it does. It was sold to us little by little over time by the people really in charge. Now we are here, where greed and corruption rule the world. We don't need to fight wars or have poverty, the system creates those problems and we act as if there is no solution to the problems. We act as if these problems are natural. We just need to change the system.

[Michael Hardner]

Then I guess Thomas Jefferson is right.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%"

It's a matter of freedom and liberty. The governments role is not to choose what liberties and freedoms we can have, their role is to protect all of our liberties. Life is yours, nobody should be telling you how to live it or what you can and can't do to your body.

No, they administer the workings of the nation, and pass laws respecting the constitution. Not all of our liberties. Liberties do come into conflict. When they do, process determines a resolution.

Look at the 60's-70's with the hippies, they didn't want war or government control, all they wanted was peace, freedom and love. The people in charge saw this and had to eliminate the threat to their power structure. That's why we now fight a War on Drugs.

There wasn't so much love in the 1970s as the 1960s. I guess you must not have been alive then. The Reagan Era that saw the WOD also saw the rise of new and dangerous street drugs.

The War on Drugs wasn't effective at all, was it ? So I don't know what that says about your conspiracy.

No government should have the power to tell you how to live your life.

These are called "laws".

Exactly. that is the conspiracy, the entire system is designed to work as it does. It was sold to us little by little over time by the people really in charge. Now we are here, where greed and corruption rule the world. We don't need to fight wars or have poverty, the system creates those problems and we act as if there is no solution to the problems. We act as if these problems are natural. We just need to change the system.

Greed and corruption rule the world because people are greedy and corrupt. People are also lazy, hateful, neglectful, and alternately caring, proud, protective of the weak... People are lots of things and these are the things you see in the system.

Submit a solution and if it's good then perhaps the marketplace of ideas will make it work.

Lyndon Johnson saw that the United States couldn't support segregation, so he pounded through the Civil Rights Act. MADD saw a problem with drunk driving decades ago, and they worked to raise awareness and got laws changed so that the behavior wouldn't be tolerated. Scientists have started noticing that the earth is warming, and we're now debating huge changes to our policies to mitigate these things.

Don't be so negative.

[maple_leafs182]

No, they administer the workings of the nation, and pass laws respecting the constitution. Not all of our liberties. Liberties do come into conflict. When they do, process determines a resolution.

That's crazy, liberties are all we have, they should be protected over anything else.

Once a free and open society starts taking away liberties it is no longer a free and open society

There wasn't so much love in the 1970s as the 1960s. I guess you must not have been alive then. The Reagan Era that saw the WOD also saw the rise of new and dangerous street drugs.

Sorry, i should of said late sixties early seventies, and I wasn't alive then, I'm alive now and I see what is going on now.

Even if new "dangerous" street drugs come to be, they should still be legal. No one should be able to tell someone else what they can and can't do with there body. You can educate people on the dangers and offer help to addicts who seek help, that's pretty much it.

The War on Drugs wasn't effective at all, was it ? So I don't know what that says about your conspiracy.

The war on drugs isn't successful. It creates the gangs, we create this multi billion dollar underground market for the gangs to fight over. So all of us are stuck living with this on going problem of gangs and street violence, we then end up a little more Dependant on the government to protect us. They need our fear to control us.

Well i guess you could say it is successful for the ruling minority.

These are called "laws".

thanks.

I'm not a complete anarchist, I do believe there is a role for government and it's role should be to protect our liberties.

Greed and corruption rule the world because people are greedy and corrupt. People are also lazy, hateful, neglectful, and alternately caring, proud, protective of the weak... People are lots of things and these are the things you see in the system.

I know, we are all miniature societies. We act as we see society acts. Monkey see monkey do.

In order for us to change we must change society. Society always be open minded and open hearted in order to succeed.

Submit a solution and if it's good then perhaps the marketplace of ideas will make it work.

Lyndon Johnson saw that the United States couldn't support segregation, so he pounded through the Civil Rights Act. MADD saw a problem with drunk driving decades ago, and they worked to raise awareness and got laws changed so that the behavior wouldn't be tolerated. Scientists have started noticing that the earth is warming, and we're now debating huge changes to our policies to mitigate these things.

Don't be so negative.

I am not trying to be negative, I am just trying to show the problems of society, we cannot turn our backs away to these problems forever.

I'm trying to promote love and peace.

MADD says drunk driving is bad, most people agree.

I say there is a conspiracy, most people call me crazy.

But I'll never fall as long as I stand for something.

[Michael Hardner]

That's crazy, liberties are all we have, they should be protected over anything else.

Once a free and open society starts taking away liberties it is no longer a free and open society

You don't have unrestricted liberty. You don't have the right to keep property, you don't have the right to social assistance... the list goes on.

Sorry, i should of said late sixties early seventies, and I wasn't alive then, I'm alive now and I see what is going on now.

Even if new "dangerous" street drugs come to be, they should still be legal. No one should be able to tell someone else what they can and can't do with there body. You can educate people on the dangers and offer help to addicts who seek help, that's pretty much it.

If you're not going to regulate dangerous drugs then why regulate anything ? An addict is the person who has the least control over his/her decisions. If you're going to let them choose drugs then you may as well allow predatory financial practices, and allow financial pushers to rob little old ladies.

The war on drugs isn't successful. It creates the gangs, we create this multi billion dollar underground market for the gangs to fight over. So all of us are stuck living with this on going problem of gangs and street violence, we then end up a little more Dependant on the government to protect us. They need our fear to control us.

Well i guess you could say it is successful for the ruling minority.

So, you will instead have corporations making billions pushing drugs. Do you like that better ?

I am not trying to be negative, I am just trying to show the problems of society, we cannot turn our backs away to these problems forever.

I'm trying to promote love and peace.

MADD says drunk driving is bad, most people agree.

I say there is a conspiracy, most people call me crazy.

But I'll never fall as long as I stand for something.

You haven't addressed the good things that society has done, and especially the good things that are done despite the wishes of the elite.

[maple_leafs182]

You don't have unrestricted liberty. You don't have the right to keep property, you don't have the right to social assistance... the list goes on.

But you still should have the right to live life the way you wish, not the way the majority wishes.

If you're not going to regulate dangerous drugs then why regulate anything ? An addict is the person who has the least control over his/her decisions. If you're going to let them choose drugs then you may as well allow predatory financial practices, and allow financial pushers to rob little old ladies.

Yes you let them choose if they want to do drugs.

If they are an addict, then are doing drugs whether or not it's legal, and so are millions of other people.

So, you will instead have corporations making billions pushing drugs. Do you like that better ?

Ya. Better then gangs selling to minors like they do now. At least if its legal the businesses will check for ID unlike many drug dealers now. Not to mention there wouldn't be a chance of the drug you buy being laced with another drug. It would be safer for the user.

And if the subject of drugs are out in the open, people would be more willing to reach out for help if they find they need help.

Let's end the gang problem already.

You haven't addressed the good things that society has done, and especially the good things that are done despite the wishes of the elite.

We've invented some cool technologies, we've cure some disease but it's been thousands of years and we still haven't learned to care for each other.

[Michael Hardner]

We've invented some cool technologies, we've cure some disease but it's been thousands of years and we still haven't learned to care for each other.

Thousands of years ago, murder wasn't even illegal. Now, we're worried about pollution. There is progress, just not as fast as you'd like.

And I'm still glad we don't let people make decisions that would make them a burden on everyone. Hard drugs is not a 'choice'.

[Bonam]

We've invented some cool technologies, we've cure some disease but it's been thousands of years and we still haven't learned to care for each other.

That is because it is fundamental human nature to care first for oneself and one's family. It is an inescapable result of our biological evolution. Any social or economic system that does not take this fact into account, or tries to suppress or reprogram it, is ultimately doomed to failure.

[Pliny]

That is because it is fundamental human nature to care first for oneself and one's family.

Sometimes! The Captain goes down with the ship! The individual determines his priorities.

It is an inescapable result of our biological evolution. Any social or economic system that does not take this fact into account, or tries to suppress or reprogram it, is ultimately doomed to failure.

I agree but not about the biological part. Only the individual can determine these priorities. I will agree most will put self or family first, some in certain times put their country first.