@johnnym

I am ok to debate about politics until it is educational.
Your last post is clearly not educational :-).
I can be wrong in any points, of course, but try to look cruicial to ideas you present here.

I already provided you many points why this ideas are unrealistic.
And this is why I provided such funny analogy.
I really like economic theoretics, fun to read, but most of the time they are dangerous :-)

>Define globalization?

Do you really need this?

"Did you read his book that you know it's unrealistic? :) Define globalization?
How can GDP growth be bad if people get better living conditions (except if it's not sustainable but that's another matter)? "

All this things could be translated more like "are you an idiot or insane? prove it wrong." :-)
I am ok to discuss it in detail if you'll take few countries from Han Rosling report and prove that his ideas was right looking at local data and at UN numbers, talking to people.
I also had been pleased by his presentation skills, but it do not make his target right.

>Which reality is that?

Our reality :-)
Idea his is defending is simple - globalization is good, may be best thing ever invented.
His statistics do not prove his theory, but he makes all possible tricks to make us believe in it :-)

>I don't understand this comparison to fractional reserve lending, sorry.

Robertson idea was using central bank to lend money.
So, comparison is very good.
As it shows how unreal and idealistic is whole idea.
Especially coupled with your idea of "voting for it".

>Why not create more money then? The government did supply money but to the banks, which refused to inject it in the economy (lend it out).

Refused? They just never had such intention :-) And goverment know it.
In the crysys of gigantic proportions they want to save core functions. This is why they cut credits and accumulate money.

>Where can i find this information that Rosling's stats are flawed (he used UN data)?

Rosling idea is flawed and he choosed carefully selected statistics (with unknown origins, as UN do not provide sources of actual data) and good presentation style to make us believe in it.
Reality proves him wrong (despite that his main idea is covered by tons of truth).

>But like Marx they're also 150 years old, so i hope economic theory has improved upon them a little since

Ideas are the same. This is not computer chips :-)
As far as I know Austrians had been almost alone who correctly predicted 2008 and actuall described that'll happen afterwards.

>But i get the impression you don't see much benefit in it, or do you?

Let me explain. You propose to make autopsy on living organism. Remove 90% of blood vessels and replace them with free market where you could get blood from heart directly. :-) After this you propose that most cells will make it as new, completely free socium, despite organism will be dead.

>I really hope that you do not seriously take his visually appealing presentations.
Their whole goal was to show how good is globalization. As his whole center is financed for exactly this.

Where can i find this information that Rosling's stats are flawed (he used UN data)?

>I think that you contradict yourself here. If they produce useful services and goods why they need this volumes that "banks cut off the money supply" of. And why it is bad for them to "buy up real estate at bottom-dollar"? Something is wrong in your logic.

I don't think so. But maybe i can put it another way : if banks after the crisis refuse to lend to businesses, people lose their jobs. Is a business that needs to lend useless per se? No. Is a person that loses his job through contracting liquidity (cutting off money supply) useless per se in his work? No.
Is there too little money to keep the economy going? Yes. Why not create more money then? The government did supply money but to the banks, which refused to inject it in the economy (lend it out).
This tells us that banks shouldn't be allowed control of the money supply, if we don't want global liquidity problems. (and we shouldn't pay interest either on money that is always created from nothing)


>Are you really belive in this? They are not hiding. I do not see any secrets and same order had need in every country since thousands of years ago. You have elite who get power and rest of crowd who get idealistic idea to sometimes "vote against all this". You can't vote against this :-)

I don't propose conspiracy theories here. I mean (by secretely buying their way into policy making) lobbying (common practice in USA), bribing (recent EU scandal), ...

>Then why do you contradict it with Marx, who basically says the same things (system that benefits only a few)?

I don't understand "basically says the same things". You can tell same way that everyone says same things :-)
Marx showed that problems are much deeper than banks profits. In fact, commercial banks had been proposed as cure to real problems. And this worked for quite a time.

>Food? yes. Housing? yes

:-) I really wanted this to be so. But it is not.

>Hans Rosling's stat analysis on TED, based on UN stats.

I really hope that you do not seriously take his visually appealing presentations.
Their whole goal was to show how good is globalization. As his whole center is financed for exactly this.

>Most of those people were providing goods and services, until banks cut off the money supply and put the economy in a depression to buy up real estate at bottom-dollar.

I think that you contradict yourself here. If they produce useful services and goods why they need this volumes that "banks cut off the money supply" of. And why it is bad for them to "buy up real estate at bottom-dollar"?
Something is wrong in your logic.

>Owners of 80% of the resources are less than 1% of the population. In a democratic process their voice is irrelevant.

Again, I like this idealistic approach.

>They have always secretely bought their way into policy making

Are you really belive in this? They are not hiding. I do not see any secrets and same order had need in every country since thousands of years ago. You have elite who get power and rest of crowd who get idealistic idea to sometimes "vote against all this". You can't vote against this :-)

One important thing happenign after you remove credit from commercial banks is that you need to make someone responsibe for project results (returning money, etc). And I do not know working solutions here.

>The fact that someone points you to a good resource of information, and you baselessly refute it (by naming it a liberal heaven without having read the text) :)

Approach you are reffering to is known widely and is not exclusive to Robertson :-)

> if in essence there's plenty for everyone

Are you sure about this?

> Are there enough houses for everyone in America? Yes, more than enough. But a large percentage of houses is foreclosed. This is inefficient distribution of wealth.

Generally this is system becoming more and more effective.
As you can't provide big house to people who do not privide any useful products or services to system in return.
This is exactly that is happening. And will be happening in other sectors also.

>they will understand and vote against this system

I really like your idealistic approach.
So, you suggest that owners of about 80% of money and resources will give to others because someone voted so (I even do not go to details how such voting could happen, suppose this fantasy became true) ?

>Secondly, information has never been so public.

Are you sure about this?
I do not see any trend of opening information.
Information is the power and always will be.

I am talking with many young people each year. And I can clearly say that things you are hoping (understanding) are not happening, in fact, exact opposite is happening.

And yes, you describe liberal heaven. Premise of this is that if you give people some freedom (I do not know that this means in such context), money and ability to do something useful they'll do it. They won't.
Nature is about concurrency, For food, resources and ability to have offsprings. So, liberal heaven you describe will turn to liberal hell in no time.

:-)
I think that you need to go to the roots - read Marx.
You are describing some liberal heaven.
I am talking about reality. And in reality every complex system is trying to survive.
And bank system is essential tor about 99% of richest people, owners of medium to large firms.
This is why you can't change it without blood.

>The point is that creating money should be debt-free (why would it not be?), instead of letting banks do it and then pay interest on it.

Problems is that in capitalism it is impossible.
As you need banks not only as debt creators. But as place saving money obtained by the top. And to lend money to the poor, so top will become even richer.
You can't remove this construction without blood.

>That's why the system cannot repay the "debt", because most of the "debt" is created by "subsidizing" banks (called fractional reserve lending).

Fractional reserve leads to making money from nothing. But this works in normal situation only.
In normal situation 1 dollar of new debt must produce more than 1 dollar in GDP.
Problem is that new debt effectiveness becomes less and less, so today you need from 10 to 25 dollars of new debt to make 1 dollar of GDP.
This is why you see so huge numbers in QE and QE2 programs.

>From whom? The producers. So the world full of debtors and creditors. I think the system will collapse when the "Greed" trend begins fading. But there's no sign of it.

Generally, your credit is not from producers. It is easy to check comparing GDP and credit amounts in last 40 years.
And credit is fading already for quite a time.



Red line is credit :-) Green - deposits.
So, something happened with greed. And this thing is called fear.
System can not repay the debt (previous generations tried to do this in much better situation, as result we have bank system owning most of the resources and firms). So, oens who feels better want to repay it.
They started thinking in reverse to normal trend (more credit gives you competitive advantage).