Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    That's just meaningless gibberish. You want money to be decoupled from money. You don't know what you're talking about.
    It's gibberish to you because you have no understanding of how money is created and issued. It's a shame you have to resort to antagonism rather than simply ask for further clarification. I try to avoid engaging with those who are mentally unhinged but I am rational and humble enough to give second chances.

    The Sovereign Money system seeks to withdraw from private banks the power to create money and return it to a public body for the national interest. It wants to redefine money so that it is no longer created as a debt by the private banking system. This is primarily because under the current system, money exists as both private debt and a means of payment. The compulsory identification of money and debt just creates banking-doctrinal confusion. It confuses the instrument with the object, i.e. it erroneously identifies the unit of account with what is accounted or measured, and confuses the means of payment with what has to be paid. The creation and issuance of money can, but need not, involve a financial transaction of lending/borrowing and redeeming. To maintain that debt can only be repaid with debt (a logical implausibility) ignores or misrepresents 2,500 years of coin currencies when new, additional money typically was not loaned into circulation against interest, but spent into circulation debt-free by the rulers who had reserved for the state the monetary prerogative of coinage and seigniorage.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    It's gibberish to you because you have no understanding of how money is created and issued. It's a shame you have to resort to antagonism rather than simply ask for further clarification. I try to avoid engaging with those who are mentally unhinged but I am rational and humble enough to give second chances.

    The Sovereign Money system seeks to withdraw from private banks the power to create money and return it to a public body for the national interest. It wants to redefine money so that it is no longer created as a debt by the private banking system. This is primarily because under the current system, money exists as both private debt and a means of payment. The compulsoryidentification of money and debt just creates banking-doctrinal confusion. Itconfuses the instrument with the object, i.e. it erroneously identifies theunit of account with what is accounted or measured, and confuses the means ofpayment with what has to be paid. Thecreation and issuance of money can, but need not, involve a financialtransaction of lending/borrowing and redeeming. To maintain that debt can only be repaid with debt (a logical implausibility) ignoresor misrepresents 2,500 years of coin currencies when new, additional moneytypically was not loaned into circulation against interest, but spent intocirculation debt-free by the rulers who had reserved for the state the monetaryprerogative of coinage and seigniorage.

    Cut and Paste job?

    This is just hilarious. You don't know the first thing about monetary economics and you're using all these words you don't even know what they mean.

    It really is gibberish I'm afraid. Why don't you try and read up on the subject a bit more before continuing - if you want something explained, just ask in the economics forum and I or another economist will try and help.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'd reply to Polymath but it looks like he's been cole-slaw-ghtered.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Are you talking about M0, M1, M2 or M3? Do you even know the difference?
    The physical notes and coins are created by the central bank and the treasury, respectively, but constitute only 3% of the entire money supply and is supplied by the central bank as central bank reserves to satisfy withdrawal demands by customers from commercial banks. The rest of the money supply is created digitally as debt, wherein the commercial banks have a proactive role while the central bank has a reactive role.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    The physical notes and coins are created by the central bank and the treasury, respectively, but constitute only 3% of the entire money supply and is supplied by the central bank as central bank reserves to satisfy withdrawal demands by customers from commercial banks. The rest of the money supply is created digitally as debt, wherein the commercial banks have a proactive role while the central bank has a reactive role.
    2.3%, actually. But good guess.

    Broad money is just credit. There's nothing complicated about it. We can all extend credit simply by writing an IOU note.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    This is just hilarious. You don't know the first thing about monetary economics and you're using all these words you don't even know what they mean.
    What don't I know? Why are you being so presumptuous? Is there a reason why you are incapable of being specific?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    2.3%, actually. But good guess.

    Broad money is just credit. There's nothing complicated about it. We can all extend credit simply by writing an IOU note.
    I never argued that it is complicated. You appear to be countering a point that I'm not making.

    We, the general public, are not legally permitted to create money. Did you not know this? The private banks create money in the form of debt through the process of loan-making. The problem is that debt-based money does not serve the public interest and produces asset-price inflation.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    What don't I know? Why are you being so presumptuous? Is there a reason why you are incapable of being specific?
    You don't appear to know anything. Its hard to be specific about what exactly you don't know, because the sentences you are coming out with are literally meaningless gibberish.

    stuff like this:

    Money, as a means of payment, must be decoupled from the debt-based credit system.

    just makes no sense whatsoever. The only value that money has as a form of payment is because it holds credit. So you can't decouple the means of payment from the credit system, because those two phrases mean the exact same thing.

    "debt-based credit system" is also a tautology. What other basis for a credit system could their possibly be other than debt? You can't have a credit without and equal and opposite debit.

    I'm sorry, its obvious that you're just horribly out of your depth.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Inflation. Britain would go bust without a strong currency and the pound would falter.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    I never argued that it is complicated. You appear to be countering a point that I'm not making.

    We, the general public, are not legally permitted to create money. Did you not know this? The private banks create money in the form of debt through the process of loan-making. The problem is that debt-based money does not serve the public interest and produces asset-price inflation.
    yes we are - just apply for a licence like this bloke:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of-dave

    Are you complaining that banks have to be licensed? Is that your problem? Or are you complaining that banks invest in the wrong things? That's not a problem of money itself, its a problem of incentives.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that debt-based money does not serve the public interest and produces asset-price inflation.


    More gibberish. All money is debt based. "Debt based money" is a tautology. The "public interest" in money is for us to have something stable that we can exchange for goods and services so we don't have to barter. Our current monetary system achieves that perfectly well.

    Asset price inflation is caused by an surplus of demand over supply for those assets. eg house prices.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    It's gibberish to you because you have no understanding of how money is created and issued. It's a shame you have to resort to antagonism rather than simply ask for further clarification. I try to avoid engaging with those who are mentally unhinged but I am rational and humble enough to give second chances.

    The Sovereign Money system seeks to withdraw from private banks the power to create money and return it to a public body for the national interest. It wants to redefine money so that it is no longer created as a debt by the private banking system. This is primarily because under the current system, money exists as both private debt and a means of payment. The compulsory identification of money and debt just creates banking-doctrinal confusion. It confuses the instrument with the object, i.e. it erroneously identifies the unit of account with what is accounted or measured, and confuses the means of payment with what has to be paid. The creation and issuance of money can, but need not, involve a financial transaction of lending/borrowing and redeeming. To maintain that debt can only be repaid with debt (a logical implausibility) ignores or misrepresents 2,500 years of coin currencies when new, additional money typically was not loaned into circulation against interest, but spent into circulation debt-free by the rulers who had reserved for the state the monetary prerogative of coinage and seigniorage.
    You appear to be copying and pasting random sentences from economics blogs and passing them off as your own.......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    just makes no sense whatsoever. The only value that money has as a form of payment is because it holds credit. So you can't decouple the means of payment from the credit system, because those two phrases mean the exact same thing.
    That which must be repaid does not necessarily have to be regarded as the same as that which must be used to pay with. It can, and I argue ought to, be separated in order to abolish public debt and taxation, as well as dramatically reduce private debt. Private banking institutions can serve as intermediaries between savers and borrowers rather than act as money creators. If you wish to argue otherwise, an actual argument is required. At the moment you're simply making an unfounded assertion, ignoring the fact money has been controlled by the state for 2,700 years. The Guernsey island currently spends a portion of money into its economy without a corresponding debt.

    I'm sorry, its obvious that you're just horribly out of your depth.
    An insult is not a valid substitute for an actual argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    That which must be repaid does not necessarily have to be regarded as the same as that which must be used to pay with. It can, and I argue ought to, be separated in order to abolish public debt and taxation, as well as dramatically reduce private debt. Private banking institutions can serve as intermediaries between savers and borrowers rather than act as money creators. If you wish to argue otherwise, an actual argument is required. At the moment you're simply making an unfounded assertion, ignoring the fact money has been controlled by the state for 2,700 years. The Guernsey island currently spends a portion of money into its economy without a corresponding debt.



    An insult is not a valid substitute for an actual argument.
    I don't think you understood what I said, because I don't think you actually understand the meaning of words like "money", "credit", "debt".

    Its very difficult to discuss economics with someone who doesn't even understand the basic terminology.

    The bit in bold is just gibberish. Of course they don't, because that would be impossible.

    Can I ask, how long have you been studying economics? I'm guessing zero years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    yes we are - just apply for a licence like this bloke:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/bank-of-dave

    Are you complaining that banks have to be licensed? Is that your problem? Or are you complaining that banks invest in the wrong things? That's not a problem of money itself, its a problem of incentives.
    If regulation of banking activity fixed the enormous excess of money in unproductive, inelastic areas of the economy in relation the amount of actual savings, it still wouldn't address the fact that the government is unnecessarily restrained, nor would it address the fact that taxation and public debt are unnecessary.

    Is Dave acquiring a license to set up his own chartered commercial bank or mutual savings bank? It costs millions to create your own commercial bank and it is near impossible to set one up for most people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    The bit in bold is just gibberish. Of course they don't, because that would be impossible.
    Now I know that your method of debate is to ignore the evidence and arrogantly cast aspersions on one's intellect rather than deal with the actual substance of what has been explained. You are officially on my "don't waste your time with" list, unsound sir.

    Here is the following evidence which you could have simply Googled. But your mission here is clearly not to illuminate, but to mudsling.

    "This splendidly insightful piece of work was not very difficult for a simple reason – Guernsey has no debt. The government of the cash-rich island, where unemployment is 1.3% and the average house costs £346,000, does not owe any money and isn't planning to borrow any in the foreseeable future."

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...s-moodys-fitch
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Inflation. Britain would go bust without a strong currency and the pound would falter.
    Inflation is an irrelevant and erroneous buzzword employed by people who do not bother to understand the Sovereign Money system, or even the practical workings of inflation. With this monetary system the rate of inflation would be under far more greater control than now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    Now I know that your method of debate is to ignore the evidence and arrogantly cast aspersions on one's intellect rather than deal with the actual substance of what has been explained. You are officially on my "don't waste your time with" list, unsound sir.

    Here is the following evidence which you could have simply Googled. But your mission here is clearly not to illuminate, but to mudsling.

    "This splendidly insightful piece of work was not very difficult for a simple reason – Guernsey has no debt. The government of the cash-rich island, where unemployment is 1.3% and the average house costs £346,000, does not owe any money and isn't planning to borrow any in the foreseeable future."

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/...s-moodys-fitch
    I know you are not doing an economics degree.

    But it would be funny of your were and I was marking it - as I have marked several other TSR users scripts.

    Because you would get a zero.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    I know you are not doing an economics degree.
    You appear to be under the impression that a degree in neoclassical "invisible hand" economics renders one absolutely competent enough to grasp how the monetary system works. Problem: it isn't taught in undergraduate modules. The proactive creation of purchasing power by private banks and its knock-on effects in the economy are completely ignored.

    Here is a revelatory fact for you. Economics is not a science. It is politics. It hides certain political assumptions behind its indeterminate mathematical equations so as to justify its purportedly predictive prowess. It is not more than a religion dressed up in equations.

    But it would be funny of your were and I was marking it - as I have marked several other TSR users scripts.
    I personally don't think you have the credentials to mark scripts when you are neither able to distinguish between the pronouns you and your, nor able to exhibit any sort of intellectual maturity.

    Because you would get a zero.
    The arrogance and lack of intellectual curiosity you display is baffling. Sane individuals who deem themselves knowledgable in a certain subject matter would dispel any misconceptions with civility. You, on the other hand, have a disease in your heart. You cannot respond to the substance of the argument but rather choose to cast aspersions on your interlocutor's intellect. Until, and unless, you get past the puerile ad hominem I shall cease to engage with you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    http://s6.zetaboards.com/Bill_Still_...pic/1177350/1/
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.