Low Interest Rates are hammering the poor

a reply to: Aazadan

thats why we make it safe at home or other locations. Capital controls suck butt. Restriction on when you can withdraw what amounts without an explanation on paper and whatnot. Nothing wrong with saving at all, it is the way we should be conducting our finances. But kept at home and not allowing it in the system that perpetuates its own eventual demise is no good either.

Keep your deposits safe, and we too can have an impact on the fake digital money that doesn't exist and the system it supports.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Perhaps I'm overly cautious on this aspect given recent events in my life where my apartment got raided and cleaned out. But keeping cash at home is way riskier than keeping it in a bank. A small savings is insured by FDIC against that bank going bust, and if a bail in happens, a small savings (say 6 months of expenses, so maybe $15k for most people) is a small enough account to dodge the bail in.

Personally, I think one of the best schemes for saving in UK Premium Bonds... at least they cannot go negative and your cash is safe.

a reply to: Aazadan

Life is a risk. Money in my control does not feed the enemy. My 3.52 will not become a $35.20 loan further entrenching a myth that will come crashing down.

The world is not safe, it will never be. Everything sold to us to try and make it safer, is simply other convincing us to put our labor into their pockets. The manipulation of this faith is what leads to many of the global conflicts which the very depositors regularly denounce, detest, and reject.

Don't allow them to use magic to create an illusion of wealth or safety. Know that safety comes out of controlling our own fate and destiny. Our own security, financial and physical. We can still take control of it. It requires the simplest of sacrifice. Abandon the modern banking system as much as possible on the personal level, depriving financial institutions of our wealth.

Slow and steady is the game. 5,000 people do it one year, and it barely registers. It grows to 15,000 the following year, with growing awareness. After so long it hits a million accounts closed, then 2 million, then 4 million. All the while an industry is reinventing itself to deal with hard assets and cash bonds only (treasury notes. BYE BYE FED).

Before we know it, in a generation the nation has repatriated its physical wealth, and no longer accountable to foreign interests. It starts at the personal level though. One must have redundant protocols. Contingencies, secret hiding places. It is alot more fun when you take back security of your own money from the bank. For one, you can actually see it grow. Numbers on a screen just does not have the same effect. The more you see it grow, the more careful and vigilante you become to the threats to your success.

Eventually, I think whole barter is the way to go.

Once one tries to barter, one instantly has the IRS and other tax offices down on one.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
Eventually, I think whole barter is the way to go.

The problem with barter is that goods don't evenly or easily exchange.

I likely have no skills that you need, and you likely have no skills that I need. If we rely on barter we cannot interact but with cash we can if just one of us has something desired by the other.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sounds like you described partial barter.
I am going for whole barter.

What if all the necessary industries are in 1 locality?
And what if all the necessary skills to run those industries are also in that same 1 locality?

And what if they are divided well enough, basically, as follows
1: gathering raw materials; (heavy weight)
2: putting together a basic material; (welter weight)
3: forming a key component; (light weight)
4: assembling an end product or service (feather weight)
Just a basic guideline...

Though today it seems this guideline is pretty much reversed...

If you have enough complementary industries, then you have whole barter, right?

You have that today, don't you?

You just don't have all the complementary industries in 1 same locality, right?
So the barter then appears partial, in each locality, when it really is whole, across many localities.

Make sense?

a reply to: InachMarbank

That might work for raw manufacturing, I can't help but notice that my field (software) isn't included though. In my field I make a single product and digitally make 10, 100, 1,000, or even 1,000,000 copies of it. How could I ever barter that for the things I want?

Lets take the example of the food industry. Say I make an inventory manager for restaurants, if I sell that to a restaurant I could strike a deal such as getting to eat there for free, in the optimal case it's a lifetime of free meals. I can only stand to eat at that specific restaurant so often though, and that puts a hardcap on my value. I actually have a real life arrangement similar to this for a local business right now. I did it knowing I was selling my work for well below market value, but because I want to see local business thrive I did it anyways.

In the case of a restaurant maybe I eat there twice/week and they're open for 30 years, that's 3,100 meals at an average of $15/meal in current USD that's $46,500 in labor. What if they're only open for 5 years though? That's only $7,800 which is about the current rate on a low end app being produced. And even then, I have to gamble on the business remaining in business. How is that fair? Software is expensive, there is very little someone can trade me that's worth equal value, and even if they can my software only has to be purchased once. There is no support for multiple software devs in the same area.

I just don't see where the value is. On top of that my industry actually thrives when things aren't centralized, it works best functioning over the internet with a decentralized production scheme.

Going back to the restaurant example, I would much rather just barter with dollars. The restaurant can make me compete for their business which forces me to be better and I can take my compensation from the job and choose to use it in whatever fashion I wish, whether it's eating out (at their restaurant or another) or perhaps using it to invest in the community by buying a house and fixing it up.

Thanks for the opportunity to get into the subject matter more thoroughly.

If rapid worldwide population growth is your goal, then yes, a decentralized model is surely best.

If slower worldwide population growth, and an eventual plateau is your goal, then easier to manage localities might work better.

Also current infrastructure seems to be running into the limits of much further growth at all.

So a shift seems to be both practical, necessary, and the morally responsible choice to allow greater growth (and thereby value).

It seems to me you are focusing too much on individual transactions between 2 enterprises.

As an expert in software, you would not barter your software for only food.

As a single person, or a part of a family, you would likely barter your skills as a worker, in an enterprise, so you could use many different enterprises.

Each enterprise would also barter their unique product or service, in forming a whole city.

And if all enterprises desired make a whole city, then no further barter is needed other than the upfront implementation decisions, which would take many years.

After implementation, wouldn't this end be much more pleasant than the volatility of continual partial barter?

Hey, like one and done. Isn't that a saying from the Fed?

Since my earlier reply was quite crude, here is quick snapshot of 64 industries that could comprise a city, and their weights relative to each other.

1.bp.blogspot.com...

If you want, we can get into who uses who, amongst all the enterprises, but most people might find that extremely boring.

a reply to: InachMarbank

well now I am interested. But we have to see that some of those industries require a partner with a global reach. It strikes me as curious to know how that relationship would interact in this scenario. A couple of examples elements, semiconductors, industrial inks, routers/switches could not necessarily be possible in ever locality due to proximity or lack thereof to naturally occurring elements which make those industries possible. So the system of barter becomes a bit more difficult and complicated when the partners are on two different continents. In this example, how would the relationship be possible through barter for these two partners without the use of a standardized currency, such as gold or silver? Or God forbid, bank notes.

Would it not take a long chain of transactions to make this possible, thus significantly increasing time of delivery for both the raw material AND the end product.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
It seems to me you are focusing too much on individual transactions between 2 enterprises.

As an expert in software, you would not barter your software for only food.

What else would I barter it for? Any specific employer isn't going to be able to meet all of my needs at one time. If I barter with the restaurant owner he can't do anything to cover my rent. If I instead work for my landlord I'll have shelter but not food. The only way I can have both is to work for both simultaneously, but that means dividing my time in two. What if I want to do something like go to a baseball game? What do I have to barter with the stadium owner?

As a single person, or a part of a family, you would likely barter your skills as a worker, in an enterprise, so you could use many different enterprises.

Not really. I have no skills. I can do math, I can code, I can sort of write, and some people tell me I'm pretty good at thinking. Reading/writing/arithmetic and coding are quite literally my only skills in life. I cannot chop wood, I cannot cook, I cannot lift heavy things, I cannot build a fence, I cannot hammer a nail, I can barely drive. I do not desire to spend time learning how to have a general skill set. I would rather improve myself and do labor relating to the things I enjoy because that's the sort of stuff I enjoy. People who enjoy those other things can do them for me. I'll pay them for services, and people who want what I can do can pay me for mine.

After implementation, wouldn't this end be much more pleasant than the volatility of continual partial barter?

Hey, like one and done. Isn't that a saying from the Fed?

What happens when I need to barter with the pizza guy for some food, but he doesn't have a need for my skills? So instead I barter with someone else, who barters for the pizza, and then provides it to me? That whole exchange is basically the employer/employee/customer model, except without a monetary system to easily make change.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

well now I am interested. But we have to see that some of those industries require a partner with a global reach. It strikes me as curious to know how that relationship would interact in this scenario. A couple of examples elements, semiconductors, industrial inks, routers/switches could not necessarily be possible in ever locality due to proximity or lack thereof to naturally occurring elements which make those industries possible. So the system of barter becomes a bit more difficult and complicated when the partners are on two different continents. In this example, how would the relationship be possible through barter for these two partners without the use of a standardized currency, such as gold or silver? Or God forbid, bank notes.

Would it not take a long chain of transactions to make this possible, thus significantly increasing time of delivery for both the raw material AND the end product.

Thank you for this question I find very challenging.

Semiconductors, routers, and switches are assembled products. So I figure less transportation is needed to assemble those in localities, where they are used, instead of assembling them in remote locations, and then shipping to localities.

But industries such as elements, and oil, if we are to rely on extracting these from Earth, than I don't see any way around the transportation from remote areas, to localities.

In the recent jobs reports, it is interesting to note the mining sector is shrinking, perhaps indicating there is little need to mine further elements from the ground, there perhaps being close to a sufficient amount of elements already mined, and above ground. (Not to rule out the need for further extraction, just saying recycling may be a bigger focus for this enterprise than extraction)

Should oil continue to be used for gasoline, then this would probably present the biggest challenge, I think.
Oil could be gotten from plants, too.
And energy could also be gotten from magnetic spin.
But those seem more long term developments, and maybe not immediately solved.
Also, I have read egg yolks make excellent use for paint/inks, lasting much longer than today's commercial paints.

The last parapraph may not be optimal, in the short term, if a city is sought to become, at least, in process of immediately becoming up and running.

It seems barter would be necessary, to deliver raw elements to localities, at least for the up front building process. And since such appears necessary, the idea may then seem to become pipe dream, to consider "profitable" commodity companies with global reach would be willing to barter with relatively small localities, just for the purpose of being morally responsible for future generations.

What would be the barter mechanism?

What I think is the people with the skill to get the applicable goods would move to the localities, and do what they do best (transport a bunch in up front, and recycle it through the business cycle, and/or continue transporting in, if needed)

And their reward is they get to live in the locality, doing what they love to do, using the rest of the localities products and services, in exchange for them providing their skill.

But, hey, c'mon now, let's get real, eh? how is that, "profitable," to a commodity company of global reach?!

And my answer to that is, these commodity companies of global reach aren't actually profitable.

Perhaps I should just leave it that, and try to put the ball in your court for reply, if you wish to prove these commodity companies of global reach actually are profitable.

Since these global commodity companies are, surely, basically, operating at a loss, they have a choice, right?

Add value, or continue destroying it.

Thoughts?

a reply to: Aazadan

The idea is:
if you can provide a product or service that a city needs,
like building database programs,
or interactive programs,
(software for a city to function or be amused)
that's the only barter you need:,
become a citizen,
do your job,
get an ID badge (or something like that)
and use what you want to use,
your citizenship is your money.
(And if you are part of a family, your family are citizens too)
(and if you lose interest in one job, you could find another worker to trade jobs with,
or you could get a family member to assume your job)

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Another point I considered, seemingly in your favor,
is it would take less travel, say
for one remote area to make a round trip delivery to 3 localities,
than it would for each of the 3 localities to go back and forth to the remote area for their deliveries.

So the local model only seems practical, if you consider,
most or all needed raw materials have already been mined,
and most needed raw materials will be recycled within a city.

To reiterate a point I made earlier, the local model doesn't seem practical for
immature, and rapidly growing societies,
but might be practical for
mature, and slowly growing societies.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
a reply to: Aazadan

The idea is:
if you can provide a product or service that a city needs,
like building database programs,
or interactive programs,
(software for a city to function or be amused)
that's the only barter you need:,
become a citizen,
do your job,
get an ID badge (or something like that)
and use what you want to use,
your citizenship is your money.
(And if you are part of a family, your family are citizens too)
(and if you lose interest in one job, you could find another worker to trade jobs with,
or you could get a family member to assume your job)

If all work is worth the same you've either reinvented communism, or if work entitles people to different amounts of goods, you've reinvented currency.

a reply to: ColaTesla

Its a fantastic time to buy, where do you live?

Don't be ignorant. Wages are flat. No one can afford even at "great prices". In my area which is a very hot market, stuff under $200,000 sells really quick. Above that(most o the market) slowly.

a reply to: InachMarbank
There are already logistics businesses to ensure that trucks never drive empty. So the round trip to 3 destinations fro the same product make sense, but there should also be an effort to make sure it is driving home with a full load as well for maximum efficiency. The barge industry has been doing this for years.

I just cannot see a pure barter system working efficiently in traditional commerce between large corporations. It is preferable to utilize a real currency, like gold and silver. IOU's , aka bank notes, should be outlawed, or legislated to the point only a specific amount is allowed to be in circulation. Digital currency should be abolished for the sake of economic stability over time.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: InachMarbank
There are already logistics businesses to ensure that trucks never drive empty. So the round trip to 3 destinations fro the same product make sense, but there should also be an effort to make sure it is driving home with a full load as well for maximum efficiency. The barge industry has been doing this for years.

I just cannot see a pure barter system working efficiently in traditional commerce between large corporations. It is preferable to utilize a real currency, like gold and silver. IOU's , aka bank notes, should be outlawed, or legislated to the point only a specific amount is allowed to be in circulation. Digital currency should be abolished for the sake of economic stability over time.

The problem with gold and silver is that it constrains the money supply, so that spending can only grow at a fixed rate every year. This dramatically limits production because we use a system that's based on producing more goods than can be purchased due to the infinite nature of money. If you make it finite, you also make the number of goods produced finite, which in turn raises prices and leaves people with fewer goods.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: InachMarbank
There are already logistics businesses to ensure that trucks never drive empty. So the round trip to 3 destinations fro the same product make sense, but there should also be an effort to make sure it is driving home with a full load as well for maximum efficiency. The barge industry has been doing this for years.

I just cannot see a pure barter system working efficiently in traditional commerce between large corporations. It is preferable to utilize a real currency, like gold and silver. IOU's , aka bank notes, should be outlawed, or legislated to the point only a specific amount is allowed to be in circulation. Digital currency should be abolished for the sake of economic stability over time.

gold and silver?...already been tried back in the 1800's....it led to booms and busts, not exactly financial stability.