The future of money

[AndySir]

I don't think it's false to say that banking was necessary for growth, and I think the benefits of growth have outweighed the immorality of the wealth gap.

To suggest that governments have never had control of (and abused) the money supply is so obviously false I can only assume that the statement was meant as an ideal - Governments have never used the printing presses in the interests of the people. No, they haven't. Ever.

See a problem there?

[peaceful_life]

I think the benefits of growth have outweighed the immorality of the wealth gap.

That's an interesting quote.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't think it's false to say that banking was necessary for growth, and I think the benefits of growth have outweighed the immorality of the wealth gap.

To suggest that governments have never had control of (and abused) the money supply is so obviously false I can only assume that the statement was meant as an ideal - Governments have never used the printing presses in the interests of the people. No, they haven't. Ever.

See a problem there?

What a strange view to take. After the banking industry has bankrupted the entire western world with behaviour driven by ravenous self-interest and total lack of responsibility towards the general public, all you can do is complain about the theoretical abuse of money-printing powers by governments?

You are a stooge, my friend - an agent of disinformation and a supporter of a failed, immoral, pseudo-capitalist system. Whether this is actually your paid work, or whether you are just doing it out of self-interest, makes no difference to me. All I can see is right-wing propaganda. In fact, it doesn't even qualify as right-wing propaganda, since the system you are so enthusiastically supporting has nothing to do with any genuinely free market or genuine business interests. All you are actually supporting are the interests of the rich and powerful people who have everything to lose when this stinking, corrupt system finally collapses.

Shame on you.

[AndySir]

What a strange view to take. After the banking industry has bankrupted the entire western world with behaviour driven by ravenous self-interest and total lack of responsibility towards the general public, all you can do is complain about the theoretical abuse of money-printing powers by governments?

You know it's not theoretical, right? Austria in the 1910's, French Assignat's Colonial Scripts, Zimbabwe's $25billion dollar notes... you know every government that's been given this power has abused it?

Why I'm continuing to talk rationally to someone who's refused to accept any possibility other than that I am lying about what I think, I have no idea. I guess I'm looking for something that would make you go "Aha!" just as I did, or some armour-piercing question that I can ask. I don't like the possibility that I am unable to communicate with you or Steve and the only possibility is aggression and entrenchment.

[UndercoverElephant]

I really can't be bothered with this. I think I've made my views known, and can see no purpose in continuing to discuss this with you.

I don't really care why you are saying what you are saying. All I know is that you are defending a banking/monetary system that is utterly bankrupt, both morally and in reality (which is why it continues to be bailed out with public money, a practice I assume you endorse.)

You don't have to answer the implied question above. I'm past caring about what you have to say.

[AndySir]

I think this is sufficiently important that it needs a thread of its own, and maybe it should end up being stickied.

I really can't be bothered with this... I'm past caring about what you have to say

...when presented with little more than a dissenting opinion. Sad.

[stumuzz]

What a strange view to take. After the banking industry has bankrupted the entire western world with behaviour driven by ravenous self-interest and total lack of responsibility towards the general public

Woah woah woah there horsy. Yes the banking industry was greedy but they only fed off the publics greed. Gov'ts were greedy for more hospitals, better services to buy votes, The public were greedy to buy houses,holidays, and cars they could not afford.

You can spout this claptrap as often as you like, it does not make it true

All I can see is right-wing propaganda.

I know.

[UndercoverElephant]

Gov'ts were greedy for more hospitals

All I can see is right-wing propaganda.

I know.

You are comparing the greed and irresponsibility of bankers who have bankrupted the entire western world out of their own self-interest, with governments wanting to build hospitals to improve health provision to the public.

And you wonder why all I can see is right-wing propaganda??

[biffvernon]

Actually the only thing that matters in the end is the nature of the peak-oil downslope. That's why we're here. All else is distraction.

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually the only thing that matters in the end is the nature of the peak-oil downslope. That's why we're here. All else is distraction.

Not sure I follow you, Biff. We are here to discuss the consequences of the downslope. I have no idea what you think "nature" means in the above quote, if it doesn't involve the things being discussed in this thread.

[RenewableCandy]

Lending-at-interest has served ordinary people well in the past when it has been well-contained and there has been room, and in some cases need, for growth. A present-day example would be someone like Grameen Bank and its punters who are borrowing money to buy some-or-other means of production (e.g. a sewing-machine, a fishing boat).

The crap starts to happen when:

The lending is no longer for a specific means of production (or the means of production loses its value, e.g. no-one want to buy clothes)
The law allows debt to be sold on to third parties

Once either of these 2 things happen, debt can no longer be "worked off" in the traditional manner (i.e. with the creditor accepting work rather than official money), and lending-at-interest does indeed necessitate economic expansion if the interest ever to be paid off.

[Little John]

Lending-at-interest has served ordinary people well in the past when it has been well-contained and there has been room, and in some cases need, for growth. A present-day example would be someone like Grameen Bank and its punters who are borrowing money to buy some-or-other means of production (e.g. a sewing-machine, a fishing boat).

The crap starts to happen when:

The lending is no longer for a specific means of production (or the means of production loses its value, e.g. no-one want to buy clothes)
The law allows debt to be sold on to third parties

Once either of these 2 things happen, debt can no longer be "worked off" in the traditional manner (i.e. with the creditor accepting work rather than official money), and lending-at-interest does indeed necessitate economic expansion if the interest ever to be paid off.

If a country needs more money in it to stimulate growth, why not simply put it into each and every bank account? I'm serious. Why does it need to be lent into existence at interest. And, even worse, why does it need to be lent into existence at interest for the profit of private companies? Why does this process also need to be enshrined in law such that they also have a legal monopoly on such a practice? Why couldn't it be simply spent into existence by our governments on our behalf on capital projects?

[RenewableCandy]

Quite.

I could really do with ten grand and I'm sure it would help the UK employment situation a heck of a lot more than ten grand's worth of QE would.

I came out as "Established Middle Class" in that Class survey, so I would of course spend it on useful things like visiting stately homes and going to the Opera

[UndercoverElephant]

Lending-at-interest has served ordinary people well in the past when it has been well-contained and there has been room, and in some cases need, for growth. A present-day example would be someone like Grameen Bank and its punters who are borrowing money to buy some-or-other means of production (e.g. a sewing-machine, a fishing boat).

The crap starts to happen when:

The lending is no longer for a specific means of production (or the means of production loses its value, e.g. no-one want to buy clothes)
The law allows debt to be sold on to third parties

Once either of these 2 things happen, debt can no longer be "worked off" in the traditional manner (i.e. with the creditor accepting work rather than official money), and lending-at-interest does indeed necessitate economic expansion if the interest ever to be paid off.

If a country needs more money in it to stimulate growth, why not simply put it into each and every bank account? I'm serious. Why does it need to be lent into existence at interest. And, even worse, why does it need to be lent into existence at interest for the profit of private companies? Why does this process also need to be enshrined in law such that they also have a legal monopoly on such a practice? Why couldn't it be simply spent into existence by our governments on our behalf on capital projects?

Exactly. Stumuzz and Andysir are doing nothing more or less than peddling propaganda designed to prevent people understanding what you've just said. There is absolutely no reason why private banks should be able to lend out "magic money" they have a monopoly over creating. And their wailing about government spending is the equivalent of trying to scare children with tales about monsters under the f*****g bed.

[stumuzz]

Exactly. Stumuzz and Andysir are doing nothing more or less than peddling propaganda designed to prevent people understanding what you've just said. There is absolutely no reason why private banks should be able to lend out "magic money" they have a monopoly over creating. And their wailing about government spending is the equivalent of trying to scare children with tales about monsters under the f*****g bed.

U/E go back a few pages to the discussion about the secret of Oz that I posted a couple of years ago. The whole premise is about the state issuing money without interest.

Try to keep up.

And BTW. There behind you U/E! RUN Run, the right wing propagandists are behind you, there're everywhere, everywhere i tell you, run!!!!!!!!!!