Parasite Economy Companies

[Veni_Vidi_Vici_W]

@howlingwolfpaw

notification

i agree about your concern regarding how money comes into existence and the role of the government/fed here, its not right how it goes now and that itself creates many issues. Though i dont think fractional reserve banking is wrong per se, that system can be used properly as well. Just the ratio currently allowed is too high, combined with the fact that banks are not banks anymore and just invest (gamble) on the rigged markets these days, as well as regulators allowing too much and that money can be created now without any limit.

I have thought about a system like you describe but its hard to accomplish. Of course focusing on creating and maintaining wealth rather than debt is surely good. But to provide everyone a basic income without doing (contributing) anything, is probably not going to work long-term. A similar basic income (food, shelter) used to be the case in older societies, but then you had to contribute one way or another to that society as well.

[howlingwolfpaw]

@incog

notification

i debated my own words in that statement, but just trying to make a point about scale and proportion.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

Who owns the govt? it is a peoples affair or for a king? so then who should control the finances? the people or the king? (king= elitist corporate manipulators)

I make the argument that it is only ethically fair and sustainable that the currency belongs to the people. and therefor for any new money to enter the economy has to be directly fed to the people rather than to the banks who then monopolize on this to enslave the workers. By supporting fractional reserve lending you are saying it is OK for a person/ bank to create money out of thin air.... that is much worse! because a few elite people can directly manipulate the system and cause the severe security risks that can ruin a nation.... it is that serious. Now If I as a person did that same thing a bank did, create money I would be convicted of fraud/ counterfeiting or worse....

Too hard is an attitude that will never reach to progress... Bandaid fixes to the economy only last for a short while then cause more problems, its time to evolve as a society and create a system that is fair and balanced.

[howlingwolfpaw]

The banks are definately deregulated! the federal reserve has never been audited, reported to congress, or held accountable for anything. They are a separate entity that runs like a drug cartel/ moffia. And they created this system intentionally to be able to exploit it and create unlimited wealth and power for their families legacy.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

thanks. I saw it red in spell check I just didn't care cause I use this touch pad that is too touchy sometimes to left click and click the menu. but really..... so what? could you understand what I meant?

in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one way."

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

What conspiracy? Everything I have explained is purely mathematical facts applied to real life application. The information has been out there for over 100 years, and the idea of banks fought over since the countries conception. I only speak the truth brother, if it is too hard to accept then I don't know what else to say other than another favorite colloquialism " you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"

To label me as a conspiracy theorist is only to resort to hominid attacks that do nothing to refute actual ideas and create a system that we know needs to be changed but rather to fight for the wrong side of history that is financial slavery.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[evilcheadar]

Don't take it seriously howlingwolfpaw, incog is just trolling

[howlingwolfpaw]

A poor reader? really? I have demonstrated a vast more breadth of understanding on this issue. Perhaps it is that you have poorly communicated your idea, that you say you love the quote, but other than that sentiment you think I am a conspiracy theorist (what conspiracy exactly?) that does not warrant any recognition? but you also agree that there is some truth so I am right.... you are back tracking? what is it you are trying to say? And why say it?

Maybe it would then be apt for me to respond in kind like "Oh, you must be a dumb sheep sucking off the tit of the big corporations who was programmed from birth to job to be a peg as a corporate wage slave. But at least you are a grey sheep, that does ask some questions and is begging to realize that something is wrong with the system and we were meant for something better."

So now what would that have created? a topic from where we were discussing ideas to not trying to make character judgements.... Sorry but I do not want to do that. I want to talk about wages and a fair balanced financial system. So please lets be kind and respectful even to ideas that you don't quite grasp.

in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one way."

rofl, 10/10

love it

Otherwise, I would argue that you are a conspiracy theorist who is raving and should be ignored, if what you were saying weren't so close to the truth. See 2008.

No one is doing anything to realistically regulate finance. It's easy for these institutions to dodge governmental regulation too.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

Ok, that makes some more sense.... But in the way it is said does not sound flattering when you say "should be ignored". There may be some conspiracy behind it all, but it is far from theory. In a nut shell, society has sprung out of anarchism, starting with the few and powerful who build up nations as kings.... those nations then revolted to become peoples republics. Those same old "kings of men" then became the corporations to take over those countries again. The prosperous future will be for the lands where the people can again take control of their financial destiny. To me its all part of the human drama towards the progression of a just society.... That is of course depending on if whether we can do it proactively and peacefully in a smooth transition rather than waiting for collapse and inevitable uncivil/world war, resulting in anarchy once again.... I believe we can, and education through is the first priority.

[Dolan]

Since all money when created is actually brought into the world as debt (via the privately owned federal reserve) taxes must be created (income tax) to pay this interest back to the banks.

It's a bit different, actually, if you're talking about the USA.

The Fed used a credit facility between 2008 and 2010; basically they were creating new money by crediting the primary dealers' accounts. So, it was the banks which borrowed money from the Fed, not the other way around. The debt was on the banks' books. The trick was that only primary dealers had access to this very cheap money, since the cost of this type of credit was close to zero.
The idea that the US government would increase taxes to pay its debt is really wild. You can't really increase taxes to the extent that you can start paying off trilions of debt.

Another method used by the Fed to create money was to buy financial assets from banks, in order to provide them with funds. So, under the guise of investment, they were propping up these banks.

The debt you are probably thinking about is their public debt, which was created by the government running a huge deficit for years (spending more money than they collected from taxes).

But that's sort of unique to the US. Most other central banks in the world are not allowed to buy assets from banks or to buy government debt, at least not directly.

Yeah, the system is rigged, but if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you have to first understand how it really works.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I do not really see the difference because having banks borrow from the fed is still creating money out of debt from lending. It all has to originate from the reserve bank. (or created as an IOU in form of credit voucher in fractional reserve lending to my understanding.
The debt I talk about actually reaches world wide. It is the result of negative math applied to real world applications. Because to create money (from stolen resources) the world bank (uses US currency as backer) loans money to developing countries ( to build roads or whatever, usually through foreign builders with native cheap workforce) which then in turn have to sell off resources to pay back the loans with interest trapping them in investments they cannot afford because its all rigged with no cash flow to satisfy that debt. So essentially the US economy is also propped up on the debt owed by other countries. Its a very complex arrangement and I don't know if I or anyone really grasps how it is completely done.
Another interesting thing is how each person is liable for its countries debt. You are literally traded for on a black market as collateral for that debt. It is reflected through credit scores. As your score will determine if you are a favorable commodity and will generate wealth for these corporations.

[Dolan]

There is a big difference, because you implied that the state or the Fed took on more debt to support banks. They didn't create money by becoming indebted to banks, they created money by lending money to these banks. It's like when you want to buy a house and apply for a credit to a bank, you are the one who will be in debt. Same for the banks, except that they went to the Fed to apply for this credit. The point is that the Fed didn't lose money by doing this, they actually gained some money from doing that.

Loans from the World Bank are really small, the biggest ever loan was about half a billion dollars. And their budget amounts to a few billions per year. That's peanuts money compared to the GDP of any developed country. WB loan rates depend on how good is a country's rating.

No, you personally will never be liable for your country's debt. Not legally. You could say that public debt repayment can have an impact on your life, if your government uses taxpayer money to pay back (they could also use reserves). But a country's public budget is just a fraction of its GDP.

But I agree that the World Bank (and the IMF) are using shady tactics to force a country to make certain decisions. I was a witness to these tactics used by IMF officials (yeah, I was actually attending a meeting between my country's govt officials and the IMF). For example, they come to your country and tell you that you need to sell or privatise your energy production sector. Then they ask you to proceed with these measures in such a way that some American company eventually buys your production facility or makes some profit off of your transaction. The IMF and the World Bank are basically institutions which have promoted American interests for years. I'm not sure if this has still been going on since China joined their board.

[howlingwolfpaw]

There is a big difference, because you implied that the state or the Fed took on more debt to support banks. They didn't create money by becoming indebted to banks, they created money by lending money to these banks. It's like when you want to buy a house and apply for a credit to a bank, you are the one who will be in debt. Same for the banks, except that they went to the Fed to apply for this credit. The point is that the Fed didn't lose money by doing this, they actually gained some money from doing that.

Yes this is what I meant. I was not talking about the countries debt when a loan is issued. The banks "borrow" by creating a line of credit, but that money never existed and doesn't exist to pay it back so it will always be a negative balance for someone. Even when the problems got to be too much, its not like that debt was erased to balance things. New money was then issued to pay off the balances the banks owed essentially paying them off for this fraudulent service.

Loans from the World Bank are really small, the biggest ever loan was about half a billion dollars. And their budget amounts to a few billions per year. That's peanuts money compared to the GDP of any developed country. WB loan rates depend on how good is a country's rating.

I admit I do not read up on the world bank much lately to know much more about it. but in principle we seem to agree. Keep in mind 500 million to some countries is like loaning 5 billion (x10) to the USA. It simply buys more and since their economies can't produce dollars have to trade to pay it back.

No, you personally will never be liable for your country's debt. Not legally. You could say that public debt repayment can have an impact on your life, if your government uses taxpayer money to pay back (they could also use reserves). But a country's public budget is just a fraction of its GDP.

I think we agree here, I do tend to speak in broad terms as I do not really know what would happen if all our debt was called. Essentially all money belongs to the centralized banks so if they stopped lending and called this debt there would be no money at all eventually, but there would still be debt. So I am not sure how we would be able to pay back countries like China that have bought up a lot of our debt. Most likely if they tried to sell it, would create hyper inflation and the fall of American economic powerhouse consumerism. So that's a big yes to impacting peoples lives.

But I agree that the World Bank (and the IMF) are using shady tactics to force a country to make certain decisions. I was a witness to these tactics used by IMF officials (yeah, I was actually attending a meeting between my country's govt officials and the IMF). For example, they come to your country and tell you that you need to sell or privatise your energy production sector. Then they ask you to proceed with these measures in such a way that some American company eventually buys your production facility or makes some profit off of your transaction. The IMF and the World Bank are basically institutions which have promoted American interests for years. I'm not sure if this has still been going on since China joined their board.

Oh and thank you for replying!

[Papist]

Every employer should be required to pay a living wage. Otherwise there's no reason to work.

[howlingwolfpaw]

It would be nice if it were that simple.

[Laurence Drake]

Although this wouldn't have much impact on welfare. Most welfare goes to pensioners who don't earn wages anyway.

Let's see those sources of yours.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/

It's not most, but it's close.

[spanky4ever]

Myths and facts about minimum wages:

Minimum Wage Mythbusters
Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens.

Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants.

Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour — before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.

Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum.

Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally.

Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage.

Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.

Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips.

Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.

Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.

Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase.

Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices.

Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office.

Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support.

Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a “last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired” scenario.

Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it.

Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.

https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... JdizQdugJg

[Laurence Drake]

Why would trust we a US govt department that wants to raise the minimum wage?

[spanky4ever]

Why would trust we a US govt department that wants to raise the minimum wage?

lol Drake, you rather put your trust in mister Drumph

[Veni_Vidi_Vici_W]

I have to agree with him though. Not only is the source likely not objective, also lately i tend to really doubt much coming out of governments and their reasoning already shows flaws. To pick a few:

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.
Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

1. The question is why they support a gradual increase.
2. A survey is precisely that, cause at the end of the day it turns out people often act different compared to what they say. Peer-pressure, cameras, etc.
3. "small business owners say an increase would lead to more spending"? Really? Ofc if you give people more money they are likely to spend more, what does this have to do with the myth stated.

Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses.
Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.

1. The industry INCLUDES restaurants, so this has to be broken down to which category contributed and how much, instead of using aggregated data.
2. There can be so many other factors, such as economic growth, a specific subsidy for new restaurants or w.e, which could lead to positive job growth, so you cant just attribute it like this to "increasing minimum wages doesnt matter".
Its actually really sad that, coming from a government source, the argumentation is so bad...which reminds me...
An similar example closer to aoe3 people: Its like saying Breeze is a good player because he reached colonel. Not taking into account that you can achieve this by abusing water, walls, and japan, without having the real skills of a colonel.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses.
Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.

1. The myth states minimum wages, the answer states wages. Obviously there is a huge difference between the two and the effects they have on people and the economy. I can imagine higher wages in general (the people without minimum wages) leading to reduced employee turnover, but that doesnt have to be the case per se for higher minimum wages.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.
Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

1. Just as flawed as the second one above. There are so many factors that affect GDP, such as technology and even wars, that you have to split this out per category. Even IF minimum wages have a negative effect, it could have an impact which isnt high enough to make the GDP not increase. Not to mention the crazy money-creating governments have done lately to influence GDP.

etc etc etc...see thats why i think most of the information governments publishes these days is so untrustworthy...The only thing they have a point is that minimum wages have to be corrected for inflation. But thats not the same as a 'real' minimum wage increase.