Why do you hate the poor?

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Azureblue

You know money can't just be printed en masse and distributed carelessly, right? Inflation?

The USA can get away with it better than other countries due to the dollar being tied to petrol, but what you are suggesting, printing money to solve all problems is a recipe for economic disaster.

Thanks for your reply.

As things stand govts around the world print about 5-10% of all the money in ciruclation in that countires economy. What govt print; is banknotes and coins. The other 90-95% of the moeny is created by banks through deposites in credit accounts when people borrow money off banks.

When you and borrow money they rely on yours and my signature to create the credit. There are no laws in any country of the world regulating the creation of credit by banks. They can create as much or as little as they want.

Think about the booms and busts you know of here. See below for how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and executed.

The runaway inflation everyone fears is not caused by the creation of bank notes and coins, its caused by the pumping of money into an economy by the banks who have an agenda for doing that. They can do that by making money cheaper and cheapter unitl interest reates are zero. The banks know that zero interest rates lights a fire under borrowoing hence debt hence inlfation, thats when the printing starts.

Govt only needs to create as much money as they need for their own purposes. They have little reason to print more than needed. I would carefully look at who or what is motivating any govt to more than they need.

Govts can create and maintain full employment, pay healty pension levels etc if they could create all the money they needed. All they need to watch out for is that they dont inflate the economy. The banks have no such concerns because they win in both directions.

Suggest you read: The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,

nd that you research exactly how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and carried out.

In brief this is how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and executed.


The economy was rising steadily
banks created and lent "margin loans" - e.g. put down 1k to buy 10k worth of shares.
banks waited unitl the stock market went high enough for them.
Banks stopped lending and implemented the acceleration clauses in their contracts when the market flattend and showed the first sign of falling, ie 30 days to pay the loan out in full.
banks went in and brought assets for 10c in the dollar.

Hay presto, 1929-37

a reply to: bloodymarvelous



Welfare is suppose to be there for the people with hard luck, not the idiot men who don't pay for their kids, or get fired from a job because you didn't pass a drug test. Or people who continually continue to have more children when they clearly cannot afford to do so.

There is a difference between Hard luck, stupidity, disabilities, and outright irresponsibility and straight up Fraud of a system.

So what's your point exactly?

a reply to: KTemplar

The system is already fraudulent, the point is don't hate the players, hate the game.

Yes some people abuse said system but the majority of the people the welfare system supports are indeed in desperate need of the support it offers.

a reply to: andy06shake

Good assessment.

I generally have a negative view of the liberties taken by both the wealthy and the poor. FOr different reasons, of course. With the poor its more negative in that i don't like them having to go there. With the wealthy its that i dn't like them wanting to go there. But neither are a dynamic we should have in a healthy economy. You know, the one that can only exist on a chalkboard, and not reality.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

We may not be able to create a utopia in the here and now, and the idea may only exist on a fictitious chalkboard, but we can do a whole lot better than we are right now.

Fact is humanity requires a paradigm shift the likes of which we have yet to experience to even begin to lay the foundations of any utopian society where people exist with a modicum of equality.

Might sound like idealistic nonsense but for humanity to graduate, progress, and address some of the larger questions and issues we face as a race that type of society will be a requirement.

There are 2 paradigm shifts that I see as viable. One is discovering something we've yet to find: an economic system that has no economy. The other is taking our lumps and returning to entrepreneurialism to develop our "next big thing". This would require us to stop miseducating and undereducating our youth.

I don't know where we go. THe puzzle of how to make a non economic economy is so absurd im not sure it can be done without AI to do it for us. And the average person is unable to do the basic math needed to file a tax return without help, and has no hope of hustling up a buck in a market where new visions are the only way to monetize.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Mastering our power requirements and demands would go a long way to addressing the some of the issues we face.

As would conquering low Earth orbit and then the eventual colonization of the Moon, possibly even Mars.

But the fact of the matter is we face a variety of social issues and religious dogmas that we simply cannot address with just technology alone.

Tell you this through if America were to say endeavor to construct a space elevator instead of nonsensical border walls it could well indeed pave the way as to humanity entering into a new golden age.

Such a project taken to its logical conclusion could make colonization and industrialization of low Earth orbit a viable possibility thus creating new industry and future revenue streams we can only imagine.

Sounds like fantasy but the technology is there or very nearly ready and it would certainly make America great again.

"Why do you hate the poor?"

.....now think about that statement for a minute. What do you hate ?
This is a pretty broad statement, and leaves room for a pretty vague response.

"The Poor" the poor are people, thus the statement would infer we/I/you/them/they who are the poor that are hated.
I would suggest that the properties of poverty are what are the real villain. Poverty brings out the very worst in almost all people and behaviors.

It's not the people, it's the effect. Do you think Christ hated the Old Woman who gave a 'mite', or the people in her life ? Sometimes it takes so little to recover and be lifted out of poverty, and There are those content to do nothing productive because all their needs are met by the social services, ie. welfare and food stamps.

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: Azureblue

You know money can't just be printed en masse and distributed carelessly, right? Inflation?

The USA can get away with it better than other countries due to the dollar being tied to petrol, but what you are suggesting, printing money to solve all problems is a recipe for economic disaster.

Thanks for your reply.

As things stand govts around the world print about 5-10% of all the money in ciruclation in that countires economy. What govt print; is banknotes and coins. The other 90-95% of the moeny is created by banks through deposites in credit accounts when people borrow money off banks.

When you and borrow money they rely on yours and my signature to create the credit. There are no laws in any country of the world regulating the creation of credit by banks. They can create as much or as little as they want.

Think about the booms and busts you know of here. See below for how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and executed.

The runaway inflation everyone fears is not caused by the creation of bank notes and coins, its caused by the pumping of money into an economy by the banks who have an agenda for doing that. They can do that by making money cheaper and cheapter unitl interest reates are zero. The banks know that zero interest rates lights a fire under borrowoing hence debt hence inlfation, thats when the printing starts.

Govt only needs to create as much money as they need for their own purposes. They have little reason to print more than needed. I would carefully look at who or what is motivating any govt to more than they need.

Govts can create and maintain full employment, pay healty pension levels etc if they could create all the money they needed. All they need to watch out for is that they dont inflate the economy. The banks have no such concerns because they win in both directions.

Suggest you read: The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia by Ellen Brown,

nd that you research exactly how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and carried out.

In brief this is how the 1929 stock market crash was planned and executed.


The economy was rising steadily
banks created and lent "margin loans" - e.g. put down 1k to buy 10k worth of shares.
banks waited unitl the stock market went high enough for them.
Banks stopped lending and implemented the acceleration clauses in their contracts when the market flattend and showed the first sign of falling, ie 30 days to pay the loan out in full.
banks went in and brought assets for 10c in the dollar.

Hay presto, 1929-37

I'm not sure which angle you are taking here. You start off by saying that inflation isnt caused by printing money, then conclude inflation IS caused by creating money.

Color me baffled.

originally posted by: [post=22042900]Azureblue
The runaway inflation everyone fears is not caused by the creation of bank notes and coins, its caused by the pumping of money into an economy by the banks who have an agenda for doing that. They can do that by making money cheaper and cheapter unitl interest reates are zero. The banks know that zero interest rates lights a fire under borrowoing hence debt hence inlfation, thats when the printing starts.

Which is good for the economy. Yes, it does create inflation, but having 0% interest rates encourages people to borrow, which in turn they spend, boosting the economy. Money moving is good, stagnation bad.

What you are not getting is that is the government printing money to pay for social programs, infrastructure, defense and the rest that cause massive inflation, not the banks creating credit. While the credit does create minor inflation, that money is expected to be paid back, therfore taking it out of circulation. The government has no expectation to pay back printed money. Borrowed yes, printed at home, no.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: [post=22042900]Azureblue
The runaway inflation everyone fears is not caused by the creation of bank notes and coins, its caused by the pumping of money into an economy by the banks who have an agenda for doing that. They can do that by making money cheaper and cheapter unitl interest reates are zero. The banks know that zero interest rates lights a fire under borrowoing hence debt hence inlfation, thats when the printing starts.

Which is good for the economy. Yes, it does create inflation, but having 0% interest rates encourages people to borrow, which in turn they spend, boosting the economy. Money moving is good, stagnation bad.

What you are not getting is that is the government printing money to pay for social programs, infrastructure, defense and the rest that cause massive inflation, not the banks creating credit. While the credit does create minor inflation, that money is expected to be paid back, therfore taking it out of circulation. The government has no expectation to pay back printed money. Borrowed yes, printed at home, no.

Thanks for your comments.

The thing to note is that there is no law in any land regulating the amound of credit that banks can or cannot create. Therefore, if it suites the banks to ramp up inflation by lowering the bar at which people can get credit, or starve the economy of credit by raising the bar for qualifiying for creddit, the banks can distort the economy for their own ends.

if the govt created all the money they needed for their own uses, using the exact same method as the banks use, then bank that would be a moderating factor on bank self interest tactics.

All govts can create their own credit, they all did it before central banks came along.

In the 1930's the Australian Govt had a Royal Commission into banking and at the end of the enquiry, the bloke who headed the enqiry said: "There is no reason why the Commonwealth Bank cannot lend money to the Commonwealth Govt on such terms and conditions as it sees fit. This includes the non repayment of priniciple, or the non repayment of interest or, the non repayment of both."

The only reason we all pay tax is because the govt surrended creation of money to the banks. The reason tax is called tax is because they dont want to have use the word 'interest' as this might get the people asking the question: "why doesn't the govt create its own money"?

Lord Acton once said "the issue that has swept down through the centuries that will have to be fought one day is the issue of the people vs the banks."

These last two paragraphs show that the banks are far more powerfull than national goverments.

a reply to: Azureblue

Governments already do create their own money. Central banks are either part of the state directly (Bank of England) or private but acting on behalf of and only with authority of the state (Federal Reserve).

One question, if governments just created all money without taxation why would anyone use it?

a reply to: ScepticScot

There is a ratio, not sure what value it is set to. a maximum ratio of deposits to "created" money that banks in the usa must abide by. its like 5 to 1 or something like that.

The problemm is that money itself doesnt tell the whole story. if a planet has 10 billion money in circulation per day and 1 billion is going to buy food while the other 9 goes into other necessities andor luxury goods, and say a days ration of decent food costs 10 bucks.

So 100 million people worth of food is out there.

Spending 2 billion doesnt mean there will now be 200 million people worth. of food. arable landis a somewhat static resource. The price will go up by more than the quantity of production increases.

Most likely anywayI

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Azureblue

Governments already do create their own money. Central banks are either part of the state directly (Bank of England) or private but acting on behalf of and only with authority of the state (Federal Reserve).

One question, if governments just created all money without taxation why would anyone use it?

if governments just created all money without taxation why would anyone use it? Interesting question.

Govts do and dont creat their own money.

Govt create only bank nots and coins, Banks create all the credit money that is created and lent to public.
Goverments could create their own credit using the same method the banks use but the banks will not permit them to. The banks have usperped goverment and taken over the creation of credit.

When we go cashless, which is already begining to happen in small ways, the govt will not create any money at all.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There is a reserve requirement in the US (i believe 10%), however this a largely meaningless figure particularly with current low interest rates..

Banks loan money first then get the reserves they require, as loans from other banks or the central bank.

Many countries operate without any reserve requirement.

I'd money supply increases too quickly over growth then this can be inflationary. However it is important to remember that most economic resources are not static.

In the US at the moment there is still considerable unemployment, under-employment, spare capacity and spare stock.

Additional money in the economy the generates growth would not be inflationary.

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Azureblue

Governments already do create their own money. Central banks are either part of the state directly (Bank of England) or private but acting on behalf of and only with authority of the state (Federal Reserve).

One question, if governments just created all money without taxation why would anyone use it?

if governments just created all money without taxation why would anyone use it? Interesting question.

Govts do and dont creat their own money.

Govt create only bank nots and coins, Banks create all the credit money that is created and lent to public.
Goverments could create their own credit using the same method the banks use but the banks will not permit them to. The banks have usperped goverment and taken over the creation of credit.

When we go cashless, which is already begining to happen in small ways, the govt will not create any money at all.

Cash is only a small amount of the money the government creates (really just a token representing money elsewhere anywhere).

The majority of government money is bank reserves.

There is really two kinds of money in the economy. There is the money that the banks use which is issued by the government and there is the money we use which is issued by the banks.

The connecting mechanism is that while banks can in affect create their own money, all bank to bank transactions and bank to government transactions are settled using government money.

Taxes in an economy are essential for 2 reasons (and more optional ones).

1. To control demand in the economy to reduce inflation.
2. To provide a need for people to gain the currency thereby giving it legitimacy.

If people didn't have to pay taxes there would be no driver for people to actually use dollars.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The poor for the most part DO deserve their poverty and the prosperous DO for the most part deserve their prosperity. It is not within the governments authority to steal from the prosperous at the point of a gun, yes they DO, and give to the poor.

It is up to individuals to whom they will give their charity and under what circumstances. It's not up to the government to decide what charity the people's monies will go to.

Jaden

It will never be perfectly true that all poor people did something wrong, nor that all rich people did something right.

It also isn't perfectly false.

The idea that a person must reap what they sow is pretty much core to a successful modern economy. Letting people reap where they have not sown, or forcing people to sow and not allowing them to reap, creates lots of economic chaos unless we do it in moderation.

a reply to: wantsome

I don't think people hate the poor, unless their name happens to be George Soros or other billionaire nit wits who enjoy inflicting pain on those who made them wealthy beyond reason to begin with.

I've always given what I can to those who ask, I only wish those who Can actually change the world for the better,would frigging well do it. I'm tired of waiting, and I think everyone else is too.

I hardly ever give to beggars. Most are people who could work, but want to live "the life of a hunter-gatherer". Homelessness is more of a psychological disorder than an actual economic problem. (If nothing else, most of those people would be eligible for welfare checks if they applied.)


I care about the poor, but I want real solutions. Welfare works as a stop gap, but offers no transition to working. The problem is the inability of a basic job to provide enough income for a person to live (especially if they have to use daycare services while they work.)