Minimum Wage = Maximum Nonsense - A Masochistic Invitation to Derision

reply to post by Pejeu


You decided in your first paragraph that you would break the law and arrest and confiscate the bankers assets. Laws exist to protect not punish, I know it doesn't always work that way but you can't decide which laws you think it's ok to ignore.
I have 100k in my savings, the bank pays interest on it. They also loan out the money and make interest. How do you propose they get my money back from the mortgage holder so I can have it back? Or is my money just gone in your end the bank scheme?
And how do you fix the problem of electronic transfer of funds without banking?

reply to post by greencmp

Well, it is my understanding that if you took all of the resources currently devoted to social programs, sold the buildings and the equipment, fired everyone and disbanded the Departments and Agencies and distributed every penny to all American citizens in equal proportion, the current recipients would likely get an approximately identical amount.

That, hmm, that... I don't even know what to say that to really. Yes you are technically correct, but I'm not sure the statement has any meaning lol.

If you took ANY amount of money and distributed it to Americans in equal proportion, then yes, they would all get approximately the same amount lol. That's how dividing things up in equal proportions works???

Reading the OP was a waste of time.

If you think that i am going to believe that not having a minimum wage is a good idea then your a fool. Oh wait, we have countries that do that already....

I'm for the average worker not the corporate elite.

tinfoilman
reply to post by greencmp

 

Well, it is my understanding that if you took all of the resources currently devoted to social programs, sold the buildings and the equipment, fired everyone and disbanded the Departments and Agencies and distributed every penny to all American citizens in equal proportion, the current recipients would likely get an approximately identical amount.

That, hmm, that... I don't even know what to say that to really. Yes you are technically correct, but I'm not sure the statement has any meaning lol.

If you took ANY amount of money and distributed it to Americans in equal proportion, then yes, they would all get approximately the same amount lol. That's how dividing things up in equal proportions works???

edit on 30-9-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

This is what I said:

...the current recipients would likely get an approximately identical amount.

That is, the people who currently receive benefits would likely get the same amount, there is that much waste. I would estimate that well over 80% never makes it to the intended recipients.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by Pejeu

 

You decided in your first paragraph that you would break the law and arrest and confiscate the bankers assets. Laws exist to protect not punish, I know it doesn't always work that way but you can't decide which laws you think it's ok to ignore.
I have 100k in my savings, the bank pays interest on it. They also loan out the money and make interest. How do you propose they get my money back from the mortgage holder so I can have it back? Or is my money just gone in your end the bank scheme?
And how do you fix the problem of electronic transfer of funds without banking?

This is one thing I hate when people say basically, eat the rich, and take all their money. It's just sitting in the bank not doing anything. They don't realize it doesn't work like that, it would just destroy the banking system. Poor people use the rich people's money all the time.

Rich people rarely touch most of their own money. 99% of a rich persons money is currently being used by some bank somewhere to give out loans to someone to start some business or buy something. It doesn't just sit there and rot. It's called investment! Even if it's just a simple bank account, the bank will still put that money to use.

onequestion
Reading the OP was a waste of time.

If you think that i am going to believe that not having a minimum wage is a good idea then your a fool. Oh wait, we have countries that do that already....

I'm for the average worker not the corporate elite.

No worries, I was only hoping for a handful of ATSers to consider the implications, I never expected to change anyone's mind who has already made it up. The removal of government interference is a prerequisite of my desired restoration of our constitutional republic so it must be addressed. Just trying to be consistent and ask the tough questions.

Thanks for checking it out!

reply to post by greencmp


You could, the gov actually does a form of this when they lower taxes. It's basically the same thing. But the classic question is when do you lower taxes and let people fend for themselves with their own money or when do you tax and use people's money in a way they couldn't do themselves, like build public highways or have social welfare programs?

So far the answer to that question is, well we vote on it. That's how the country decides when to do which.

reply to post by greencmp


OP, I just want to mention for the reaction you're getting, I appreciate what you're doing here. We kinda clashed at first too...because I thought you were actually advocating every half baked idea you mention. No...I can see now you are doing just what you say there. Throw out the big questions and the tough ideas ...to see what comes back and what intelligent people can debate up for ideas out from there, right?

I can't think of much better things to be posting about than topics meant to simply cause people to wonder, ask and think for independent opinions vs. the MSM spoon fed drivel.

I'd give ya a flag but I did a few pages ago. lol..... I figured I'd add this because it seems appropriate. Hang in there. Someone has to ask the "dumb" questions or lack of thinking it out will just lead to dumb outcomes, unasked.

tinfoilman
reply to post by greencmp

 

You could, the gov actually does a form of this when they lower taxes. It's basically the same thing. But the classic question is when do you lower taxes and let people fend for themselves with their own money or when do you tax and use people's money in a way they couldn't do themselves, like build public highways or have social welfare programs?

So far the answer to that question is, well we vote on it. That's how the country decides when to do which.

I would have to say the actual answer is 'NOW!' but, it isn't going to be that easy.

For the purposes of welfare, I am only talking about social programs and their resources, employees and property.

I actually think public works are a much easier topic for me to defend the extreme minimization or even elimination of.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by greencmp

 

OP, I just want to mention for the reaction you're getting, I appreciate what you're doing here. We kinda clashed at first too...because I thought you were actually advocating every half baked idea you mention. No...I can see now you are doing just what you say there. Throw out the big questions and the tough ideas ...to see what comes back and what intelligent people can debate up for ideas out from there, right?

I can't think of much better things to be posting about than topics meant to simply cause people to wonder, ask and think for independent opinions vs. the MSM spoon fed drivel.

I'd give ya a flag but I did a few pages ago. lol..... I figured I'd add this because it seems appropriate. Hang in there. Someone has to ask the "dumb" questions or lack of thinking it out will just lead to dumb outcomes, unasked.

edit on 30-9-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the encouragement!

The issue is greed at every. single. level. above minimum wage jobs.

I make as much as i can, i dont try to screw people over. If i have the option to work a bit harder get a bit more and NOT hire that temp - i do it. Im ashamed of this but im not rich, i cant not work and every break or holiday i get i worry i dont have a job to return to. I do as much as i can.

reply to post by Biigs


I'm not sure greed is the proper term.
If I grow a garden and can the veggies it's looked at as resourceful. If I can twice as much as I need for the year is that greed?
Of course not.
But if I try to make as much money as I can it's called greed. That is actually providing for my families future. No different than growing my own food. Greed only applies to the situation when you fraud or steal it. If having a secure future for my kids is greedy, then I'm greedy and don't feel a bit guilt about it.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by Pejeu

 

You decided in your first paragraph that you would break the law and arrest and confiscate the bankers assets. Laws exist to protect not punish, I know it doesn't always work that way but you can't decide which laws you think it's ok to ignore.

The hypocrisy of this retort is simply astounding.

Fractional Reserve Banking, which is how absolutely every single bank in the history of banking operated and operates, is legalised or not criminalised fraud, counterfeiting.

If I would be doing what the banking system does as matter of its basic, fundamental, essential 'business' plan I'd go to gaol and rightfully so.

And here you are talking to me about breaking the law and what not.

Double standard much?



Go ahead and skip forward to 19:00.

How is that not fraud?

You do understand that this is where inflation originates from, don't you?

And that this is how 90%+ of the money supply get created (by conjuration out of thin air), don't you?

You also realise that this is by excellence a mechanism for (further) enriching the rich and (further) impoverishing the poor and middle class, of wealth redistribution, pumping of wealth upwards etc. don't you?

Which is exactly what you love to accuse the left of doing or wanting to do: wealth redistribution.

Yet here it is, happening under your very noses. Having happened like this for centuries.

But it's okay as long as it's hidden and done by the private sector, no?

Double standard much?

This fits RIGHT in with what I was saying about right wingers, that they love about the private sector what they loathe about the government of if the government were doing it.

I have 100k in my savings, the bank pays interest on it. They also loan out the money and make interest.

And someone else gets paid with the loaned money and deposits it back in the banking system.

So now you have rightful title to the 100k you originally deposited and I have rightful title to the 90k I received as payment from the bank's debtor. Which is backed by only the original 100k cash which you originally deposited.

Yet we can both spend "our" 190k, of which only your 100k actually exists, concomitantly, as if all of it actually existed, was real.

We can both spend all our money at the same time as if it all really existed, not just the original 100k.

We can do this either with cash or by debit card.

How is that not fraudulent and inflationary?

As the 190k will not disappear from existence after we spend it. It will continue to circulate and percolate throughout the economy, contributing inflation.

How do you propose they get my money back from the mortgage holder so I can have it back? Or is my money just gone in your end the bank scheme?

Why would I be proposing that?

It seems such a silly question to me.

All money exists in either physical (cash) form or virtual/electronic (fake cash) form.

If you are asking how you can have your electronic money in cash form instead then the answer is glaringly obvious.

100k worth of electronic money is destroyed and 100k more cash is printed, if the already existing cash held in the banking system is down to less than that.

But in the future no more electronic money is created without destroying (or really, truly withdrawing from circulation) a tantamount of cash.

Or no more cash is created without destroying the same nominal amount of electronic money.

There is no more creation of electronic money without destruction of cash or vice versa.

Simple.

And how do you fix the problem of electronic transfer of funds without banking?

Very simply.

You pay for services rendered.

There may still be business that provide payment intermediation and/or storage of financial assets services.

But they may no longer also lend money.

Or, if they are allowed to lend money, they may no longer provide payment intermediation and/or storage of financial assets services.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


Oh i agree! I dont think im greedy, but im not in a position where i have 'extra' i dont need yet. Im worried im going to just fall into the same trap if i do.

Who DOESNT want the best they can for their children?
I can feed them well.
I can feed them cheap.
Or i can feed them THE BEST i can.

Who would ever want to take anything less than they could?

Its human nature and that is greed.

I dont look next door and think "i have 40 quid i didnt spend this month for once and the next door neighbors washing line has been broken for nearly a week, i should buy one for them"

Instead my thought are more along the "i have 40 quid extra this month, better save that for when a month costs more than 40 quid" - but i do this to cover my ass because im in a way greedy, i dont even need it yet. but i dont share it.

tinfoilmanThis is one thing I hate when people say basically, eat the rich, and take all their money. It's just sitting in the bank not doing anything. They don't realize it doesn't work like that, it would just destroy the banking system. Poor people use the rich people's money all the time.

Rich people rarely touch most of their own money. 99% of a rich persons money is currently being used by some bank somewhere to give out loans to someone to start some business or buy something. It doesn't just sit there and rot. It's called investment! Even if it's just a simple bank account, the bank will still put that money to use.

The rich become rich either by directly participating in the fractional reserve banking fraud or aiding and abetting it in order to profiteer from it, acting as proxies and accomplices for asset price inflation from which both they (the financiers and speculators) and the banking system profit off of.

But go ahead and defend the fraudsters.

They worked real hard creating and perpetuating this fraudulent system and the feudal, hidden caste society built atop it.

They deserve to milk and exploit the rest of us as chattel.



But don't forget to wallow and lament the NWO while you defend the naked fraud they have perpetrated against humanity continually for centuries.


After all, its their divine right to own human chattel and slaves.

reply to post by Pejeu



Funny that you call me a hypocrite. You say break the law to stop someone from breaking the law.
Which other laws should we ignore to satisfy your desire to punish banks?
It's not illegal until you can make an arrest and win in a trial. It's not right but you cant jail people for doing something thats moraly wrong. Slavery was legal at one time, the laws changed. Now you go to jail for buying and selling humans. Until banking laws are changed its not illegal.

Pejeu
reply to post by greencmp

 

Banking is legalised (or not criminalised) fraud. Or counterfeiting of money.

If you consider fraud or counterfeiting to be a legitimate economic activity then I suppose you are right.

Capitalism is compatible with fractional reserve banking (there is no other kind, that's why it's called banking: cause it is based on the fractional reserve fraud/ponzi scheme) under such a caveat.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71

 

I just had a very lengthy and energy sapping discussion about this on another forum today. I don't have the wherewithal to start all over here so soon.

But, just for you, I'll give it a shot at a very short description:

1. Fixed money supply. No more new electronic or physical cash money is issued, ever. Except to replace worn out notes or to exchange a given amount in notes with an equivalent amount in notes of higher or lower denomination.

Or to replace a nominal amount electronic money with an equivalent nominal amount of cash or vice versa.

All banks abolished, their assets confiscated to, in small part, reimburse some of the people they've defrauded over the years.

All property of bankers confiscated, bankers thrown in jail for fraud and counterfeiting.

All debt to banks cancelled or at least the interest part cancelled and the debt ownership/claim on the debt/debt bond transferred to the government.

Interest already paid by debtors deducted from outstanding amounts.

2. 1 + restoring EXCLUSIVE money issuing power to the treasury, as Congress deems fit, AS PER THE CONSTITUTION.

3. (I thought this one up personally) Private money issued by corporations backed by the goods they produce. That is to say, redeemable at 1:1 ratio in the face inscribed amount, type and quality of product manufactured/produced by the issuing corporation.

For example Royal Dutch Shell would issue money redeemable in barrels of oil. Or gallons of gas or diesel fuel.

Naturally, the currency would have an expiration date set a certain time after issuance (this date would also be inscribed on the face of the notes along with the type, quantity and quality of goods backing the notes). A year for instance.

That is to say you would not be able to redeem (buy) barrels of oil from RDS in 2013 with RDS issued currency from 2010, backed by their 2010 production.

This would single handedly annihilate speculators.

As well as keep RDS from issuing notes for more oil then they can reedem them back with. As they would get caught after just one year of doing this and the consequences would be dire (beheadings if it were up to me).

The currency would enter circulation as RDS paid its employees and suppliers with it and would retire from circulation as customers of RDS would buy RDS product (oil or oil derivatives) with it from RDS.

What is left unredeemed of a year's production is paid as dividends to RDS stock holders. Their claim on this unredeemed oil stock would never expire and they would be free to sell those claims to whom/how they see fit.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Fixed money supply, for ever?
So if you created a country and started with 100 people and $100,000, each person would have $1000. But what happens as the population grows? Each person gets less and less? Or am I missing something?

reply to post by Pejeu


I should also say that I'm not disagreeing with about the banking fraud. I'm disagreeing with the way you want go handle the problem.

coop039Fixed money supply, for ever?
So if you created a country and started with 100 people and $100,000, each person would have $1000. But what happens as the population grows? Each person gets less and less? Or am I missing something?

edit on 30-9-2013 by coop039 because: (no reason given)

No, you are not.

There would be perpetual deflation.

But deflation would be logarithmic, as per the law of diminishing returns.

That is to say that deflation would slow down steadily as time went on. As this graph shows:



The red line is the average value of one of an X number of simultaneous transactions for a total money supply of 1,000 monetary units in circulation.

The green line is the marginal deflation with respect to the number of simultaneous transactions. Or the rate of change downwards in the average value of a simultaneous transaction as the number of simultaneous transactions rises.

Things would cost less and less as time went on.

Your savings would be worth more and more as time went on. This would significantly reduce the need for a "lending industry".

People could afford to save instead of borrow whereas under the current system it is more cost effective to borrow than to save.

Borrowing would be actively discouraged by the fact that you would have to pay back the same amount + interest but that money would be worth more by the time you started paying it back.

Additionally, every once in a while you could just move the decimal point a place or two to the right and in an instant you would give everyone 10 times as much money as they previously had all the while also making all money 10 times less valuable.

This would increase the resolution (accuracy/granularity/dots per inch) of the money supply (that is the ratio between the total size of the money supply and the smallest possible subdivision of the money supply) but without wealth or purchasing power redistribution.

Eventually, in a far enough away future, we would all use electronic money only. Which would probably use 64 bit or 128 bit precision. Maybe more.

This would negate the need to move the decimal point to the right every so often. Or make it far simpler.

Hoosierdaddy71
reply to post by Pejeu

 

Funny that you call me a hypocrite. You say break the law to stop someone from breaking the law.
Which other laws should we ignore to satisfy your desire to punish banks?
It's not illegal until you can make an arrest and win in a trial. It's not right but you cant jail people for doing something thats moraly wrong. Slavery was legal at one time, the laws changed. Now you go to jail for buying and selling humans. Until banking laws are changed its not illegal.

I didn't call you a hypocrite. I said you wrote something extremely hypocritical.

reply to post by Biigs


I agree at my wage 10-15 times the minimum whatever that is it's greed I went to college worked hard took some chances and make a good pile of money. Looking just under 20k$ a month and the wifes disiability and retirement adds another 3k$. I'll survive I guess


Greed is GOOD