Our continued conversation...

[Laurence Drake]

you should submit your thesis to an academic journal. I'm sure other economists will be thrilled to hear about it

this post was sarcasm in case you didnt realise

I suspected so, but I also think you don't know much (based on previous threads) so even in your sarcasm you unwittingly make a good suggestion. thanks.

lol

[Gendarme]

The house market is a bubble ready to pop. The prices are extremely inflated. You probably could buy a home in a healthy economy without having to take loans, and if someone can't, they can rent their home. There is nothing wrong with renting. Nobody forces you to take a loan.

Taking a loan does not increase the money supply. It does so only with fractional reserve banking, which I already explained is fraudulent and should be abolished.

Without fractional reserve banking, banks cannot bring money into existence. And no, the problem is not that a few cannot pay; the problem is that we are all in debt to the fractional reserve banks, because the government took loans on our behalf which we have to pay back through ever-increasing taxation. We are really in agreement here, so I don't know why I am repeating myself.

Without fractional reserve banks and without the government taking loans, the economy would not be unhealthy. With the abolishment of fractional reserve banking and the remaking of a government for the people, there is no sense in forbidding interest-bearing loans. Interest is a form of income as any other. If two people agree to a deal among themselves, there is no sense in hindering them.

[howlingwolfpaw]

The house market is a bubble ready to pop. The prices are extremely inflated. You probably could buy a home in a healthy economy without having to take loans, and if someone can't, they can rent their home. There is nothing wrong with renting. Nobody forces you to take a loan.

***Yes because borrowing money artificially inflates ones buying power, thus resulting in the increase of home prices.

Taking a loan does not increase the money supply. It does so only with fractional reserve banking, which I already explained is fraudulent and should be abolished.

***that is what I was talking about, in the current system assume all money lent is under fractional reserve, except maybe loans from the fed to the govt.

Without fractional reserve banking, banks cannot bring money into existence. And no, the problem is not that a few cannot pay; the problem is that we are all in debt to the fractional reserve banks, because the government took loans on our behalf which we have to pay back through ever-increasing taxation. We are really in agreement here, so I don't know why I am repeating myself.

***How would you bring money into existence if the govt was not borrowing it? that is what I am proposing to fix. How else would you see it done? we are in debt because all money is BORROWED thus can be assumed none of it is ours, but belonging to the banks.

Without fractional reserve banks and without the government taking loans, the economy would not be unhealthy. With the abolishment of fractional reserve banking and the remaking of a government for the people, there is no sense in forbidding interest-bearing loans. Interest is a form of income as any other. If two people agree to a deal among themselves, there is no sense in hindering them.

***This plan fixes both of those issues and can still allow for lending at interest as long as the interest is then recorded to add to the dividend. Otherwise it creates the same problems just at a slower rate. under this plan I see lots of wealth abundance because that is what the planet provides for us. in the current system that wealth is channeled using finances to a select few creating economic slavery. So many problems will disappear that lending I hope will not be such a big thing, except for investments in business ventures that can be structured through other means like percent ownership. The interest must be accounted for and transferred back into the economy.

see embedded answers.

[Gendarme]

How would you bring money into existence if the govt was not borrowing it?

The government can print money (as you are suggesting yourself, if I understand you correctly with these "dividends"). But I still don't see why bringing money into existence is necessary.

Otherwise it creates the same problems just at a slower rate.

Why would it? The main reason we have more money owed than actually exists today is that the government is taking insane loans. The only way this would happen without the government taking loans, is that the vast majority of people are foolishly taking loans they cannot possibly repay, and are setting themselves up for bankruptcy. However, this is not a problem for the people who do not make this mistake, because they will not be punished with taxation for the mistake of others. So "the same problem" does not happen without taxation, even in the worst case scenario where the people are insanely stupid and have no control of their personal finance.

One big problem, however, is when the banks are in control of a large portion of the money supply, and can inflate and deflate the economy at will (which they do easily with fractional reserve banking, because they are in control of many times more money than they actually own). But I really do not see this happening after the abolishment of the fractional reserves.

[howlingwolfpaw]

How would you bring money into existence if the govt was not borrowing it?

The government can print money (as you are suggesting yourself, if I understand you correctly with these "dividends"). But I still don't see why bringing money into existence is necessary.

*** Without a way to bring money into existence there would be no money, just trade and barter. Which has limitations so currency was developed to act as an intermediary. under the current system the govt does not print money. The treasury prints money but gives it to the federal reserve (private bank) to lend to the govt (at the request of the govt). In the system I propose it is actually the people that will in money as a representation of the goods and services they provide, which then creates the amount of currency to match what was created so that those goods and services can then be bought. The govt then acts like its own person paying itself for the goods and services that it provided, all govt services would then be free.... from drivers licence, mail, road tolls, to no taxes, etc...

Otherwise it creates the same problems just at a slower rate.

Why would it? The main reason we have more money owed than actually exists today is that the government is taking insane loans. The only way this would happen without the government taking loans, is that the vast majority of people are foolishly taking loans they cannot possibly repay, and are setting themselves up for bankruptcy. However, this is not a problem for the people who do not make this mistake, because they will not be punished with taxation for the mistake of others. So "the same problem" does not happen without taxation, even in the worst case scenario where the people are insanely stupid and have no control of their personal finance.

***as above so below, or.... if its happening in the large scale then its happening in the small scale, which is the same as people taking loans vs the govt taking loans. This effect is amplified because everything is loaned. but the sheer fact is interest creates exponential growth. So something like adding to the dividend must happen to maintain the balance of the economy.

One big problem, however, is when the banks are in control of a large portion of the money supply, and can inflate and deflate the economy at will (which they do easily with fractional reserve banking, because they are in control of many times more money than they actually own). But I really do not see this happening after the abolishment of the fractional reserves.

exactly, that is Fraud my the biggest degree.

answers embedded

[Gendarme]

Of course there would be barter without money (perhaps not with mutual credit, but that is another topic), but you want to continuously bring more money into existence - that is different to having a fixed amount of money. I know the government does not print money in the current system, but that is totally irrelevant; we both want to abolish the current system. If you have the government printing money to pay for goods and services, you interfere immensely with the free market - even more so if the government officials are anything but God's angels. Road building, postal service, etc. should not be chores of the government anyway.

People taking loans is not the same as government taking loans. People take loans for themselves; if the loan is too expensive for them, but they take it nonetheless, only they suffer. If you take a bad loan, I am not obliged to help you pay it off. However, when the government takes loans (from the Federal Reserve), and the loan is too expensive for the government (which is precisely why government takes these loans - to further enrich the richest), we all suffer. The government is in debt to the banks, and it is not the president having to pay them - it is the people.

[JakeyBoyTH]

Of course there would be barter without money (perhaps not with mutual credit, but that is another topic), but you want to continuously bring more money into existence - that is different to having a fixed amount of money. I know the government does not print money in the current system, but that is totally irrelevant; we both want to abolish the current system. If you have the government printing money to pay for goods and services, you interfere immensely with the free market - even more so if the government officials are anything but God's angels. Road building, postal service, etc. should not be chores of the government anyway.

People taking loans is not the same as government taking loans. People take loans for themselves; if the loan is too expensive for them, but they take it nonetheless, only they suffer. If you take a bad loan, I am not obliged to help you pay it off. However, when the government takes loans (from the Federal Reserve), and the loan is too expensive for the government (which is precisely why government takes these loans - to further enrich the richest), we all suffer. The government is in debt to the banks, and it is not the president having to pay them - it is the people.

The government prints money all the time. This is to keep the value of the currency down, in order to preserve exports.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Of course there would be barter without money (perhaps not with mutual credit, but that is another topic), but you want to continuously bring more money into existence - that is different to having a fixed amount of money. I know the government does not print money in the current system, but that is totally irrelevant; we both want to abolish the current system. If you have the government printing money to pay for goods and services, you interfere immensely with the free market - even more so if the government officials are anything but God's angels. Road building, postal service, etc. should not be chores of the government anyway.

People taking loans is not the same as government taking loans. People take loans for themselves; if the loan is too expensive for them, but they take it nonetheless, only they suffer. If you take a bad loan, I am not obliged to help you pay it off. However, when the government takes loans (from the Federal Reserve), and the loan is too expensive for the government (which is precisely why government takes these loans - to further enrich the richest), we all suffer. The government is in debt to the banks, and it is not the president having to pay them - it is the people.

Its like I think you get it, but you don't. There is barter right now even, I am not saying barter would not or should not happen, just that as a result of its deficiencies gave rise to currency.

What is the purpose of the gov't to you? if not to build roads, libraries, school, fire departments, manage resources, protect natural resources, protect liberties, etc... Gov't takes care of the infrastructure of society to maintain it. Privatized roads would have a toll booth at every intersection. There is still the free market. But Gov't provides services. It can pay for those services (with oversight), because money is just a receipt for goods and services. So if it hires 100 firefighters it pays them through a salary for the services they provide. If they need a fire truck then they buy one (which gets deducted from the dividend I would assume) from what ever company is making fire trucks.

Again I state... loans can work and even with interest as long as that interest is recreated into the dividend. If it is loaned without the appropriate currency to back up the created interest then small bubbles occur. Its just plain math.
for instance lets say ten people each own 100 dollars, that's 1000 in the economy. 4 people want to borrow 50$ at 10% interest. the current value of the economy is still 1000 9800/200), but now owed is 240 making the needed economy to be 1040. That forty dollars has to come from somewhere. So it must be distributed equally among everybody. so that no one is short 40 bucks.

[howlingwolfpaw]

The government prints money all the time. This is to keep the value of the currency down, in order to preserve exports.

Actually no not really. The gov't does not print any money for itself. It has to ask the Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned and for profit, with no congressional oversight or audit ever) to loan it money from the treasury.

That is why they are called "federal reserve notes" and "treasury notes" It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated in history and its very big, world wide, and the cause of many wars to protect it.

[JakeyBoyTH]

The government prints money all the time. This is to keep the value of the currency down, in order to preserve exports.

Actually no not really. The gov't does not print any money for itself. It has to ask the Federal Reserve Bank (privately owned and for profit, with no congressional oversight or audit ever) to loan it money from the treasury.

That is why they are called "federal reserve notes" and "treasury notes" It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated in history and its very big, world wide, and the cause of many wars to protect it.

Isn't the meaning of federal to be controlled by the government tho? Like the FBI

[howlingwolfpaw]

part of the illusion, like federal express its a private business