Sometimes you have to pay...
-
>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) ? -
I think you're both right to some degree. You would both be right and in agreement if VK would change:
"You can't remove this construction without blood."
To:
"They won't remove this construction without blood."
:D
Which is correct and the basis for all of the wars in the past 12 years - without question. Libya is a perfect example. Libya changed up... Nationalizing their oil and refusing central banking. Result? Well, you're seeing it. ;) Blood!
-
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.
-
>Approach you are reffering to is known widely and is not exclusive to Robertson :-)
Then why do you contradict it with Marx, who basically says the same things (system that benefits only a few)?
> Are you sure about this?
Food? yes. Housing? yes. Cars? No, but not everyone needs a car. Look at Hans Rosling's stat analysis on TED, based on UN stats. Only concern is about environmental sustainability (which will hopefully be solved by nuclear fusion to replace fission), not about GDP growth.
> 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.
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.
>So, you suggest that owners of about 80% of money and resources will give to others because someone voted so?
Owners of 80% of the resources are less than 1% of the population. In a democratic process their voice is irrelevant. They have always secretely bought their way into policy making, but that will no longer be possible when enough people recognize this and vote against policy makers that don't defend the middle class' rights and needs. I expect more people to stand up against this system, because of survival : things are so bad right now that most people just don't accept this inequality anymore. True there is misinformation, but there is also more and more correct information through internet, which is not entirely controlled. I have faith that common sense will prevail. -
>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 :-) -
@johnnym
I suggest you to read something produced by Austrian economic school.
Their main idea that central banks stand behind most problems.
And they have many valid arguments :-) -
>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), ... -
>I suggest you to read something produced by Austrian economic school.
Their main idea that central banks stand behind most problems.
And they have many valid arguments :-)
Yes, they are the basis of Robertson, Friedman, etc. But like Marx they're also 150 years old, so i hope economic theory has improved upon them a little since (it would be sad if it didn't) :)
The end of fractional reserve lending isn't the solution to all problems. But it will be a big step towards the redistribution of wealth. But i get the impression you don't see much benefit in it, or do you? -
>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.
-
>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.
Very true :)
>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).
Which reality is that?
>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 don't understand this comparison to fractional reserve lending, sorry. -
>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". -
>So, comparison is very good. As it shows how unreal and idealistic is whole idea.
Which organism will be dead then? And why is Roberton's idea unrealistic?
Did you read his book that you know it's unrealistic? :)
>His statistics do not prove his theory, but he makes all possible tricks to make us believe in it :-)
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)?
-
@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. -
awesome discussion. I wish I had more time to be able to read Marx. But generally speaking I think Vitaly is right. There's no alternative to socialism if we are not going to arrange some little Armageddon to solve the unsolvable problems of capitalist "dog-eat-dog" society.
-
>I already provided you many points why this ideas are unrealistic.
The only point i see you made is that change is not possible without bloodshed. While history proves you right, there are more factors now than before to consider here imo.
That said, if you don't find this discussion educational, i also have no desire of continuing it. It spares me the effort of trying to decipher cryptic analogies. :)
-
@johnnym
OK.
I just want to ask simple question (I already raised similar concerns but they passed unnoticed).
Who exactly in this theory will be responsible for lending money to people or firms?
I do not mean central bank, as it can't do it.
History also proved that any branches consisting of goverment clerks can't do it, because they do not have any real responsibility. -
Government, private investors, banks, ... But banks will only be able to lend what they have (like everyone else finally), and not lend out 10x more, taking away the unfair advantage ("subsidy") they have had since 17th century.
If you really care to know a detailed answer to this question, you can find it in Robertson's book. -
>If you really care to know a detailed answer to this question, you can find it in Robertson's book.
@johnnym
This is forum. So you can't constantly answer to all questions in a way that all must read book you like.
If it contains some valuable things tell them without much details, and make proper link to specific book and chapter to get more details.
>But banks will only be able to lend what they have (like everyone else finally), and not lend out 10x more, taking away the unfair advantage ("subsidy") they have had since 17th century.
Please can you describe that you understand under "lend what they have" and that under "lend out 10x more".
As from your words I have strong suspicion that you do not understand how it is all working in reality.
> private investors, banks
My understanding reading few reviews and short summaries of his books is that central bank will replace commercial banks. Or I got something wrong here? -
Yes, you get it wrong. Central bank will not replace commercial banks. In fact not much will happen at all. Banks will remain as they are right now, but they cannot (anymore) lend more than they have. There will be no bloodshed, just fair accounting. You are not allowed to create assets in your ledger out of thin air, are you? Well, for some time now, commercial banks have had this privilege and it's unfair and creates massive profit for a few, and massive losses for the rest of society.
Lending more than you have = fractional reserve banking : it means that banks lend from the central bank, and are allowed to lend more than ten times (up to hundreds of times) this amount to customers (by creating money out of thin air). This way banks can earn record profit (suppose you could lend 10x more money than you have to others and ask interest, how rich would you be after some time?)
You can doubt my intelligence and whether i understand this system, but not before you understand fractional reserve banking. This is the common way of banking in most countries for a long time now. In our long discussion, i thought you knew this? -
Can you describe how fractional system works in real life?
As "it means that banks lend from the central bank, and are allowed to lend more than ten times (up to hundreds of times) this amount to customers" is not how it works.
It is quite common misunderstanding and oversimplification.
>You can doubt my intelligence and whether i understand this system, but not before you understand fractional reserve banking.
I really like your agressive style. But we must keep discussion on point and not go into personalities, ok? -
Generally, it looks like even wikipedia has not very bad description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Example_of_deposit_multiplication
My point here is that whole process is dynamic and it is not static.
Plus it is working not in one bank, but it require whole connected commercial banks system.
In reality you can't get 10x multiplier with 10% reserve.
It is also interesting how Roberts want to cure capitalism by destroying medication invented to cure capitalism problems (and as I stated earlier it worked very good). Very interesting. -
>It is quite common misunderstanding and oversimplification.
It's fact. European parliament proposed measures to augment the fractional reserve from around 3% to 9%, because of the financial crisis it created. But this is no solution. A solution is to have a 100% fractional reserve = no fractional reserve.
>I really like your agressive style. But we must keep discussion on point and to go into personalities.
I agree, but then you shouldn't initiate personal attacks by telling me you have a strong suspicion i "do not understand how it is all working in reality". :)
Look Vitaliy, i like your thinking outside the box. It created the GH13 and now in this forum we discuss economics and politics, which i like to do. But only on the basis of fact. I cannot prove Rosling's stats, so i shut up about them. But i do know about fractional reserve banking, so there's little to dispute here. Either you know about this or you don't. But if you don't, this discussion is not interesting for me. -
>In reality you can't get 10x multiplier with 10% reserve.
True, but the reserve rate has always been 3%
>It is also interesting how Roberts want to cure capitalism by destroying medication invented to cure capitalism problems (and as I stated earlier it worked very good).
Please specify, as i don't see what you mean. -
Interesting discussion.
I very much believe in what John has said. Unfortunately though when it comes to socialism and the distribution/re distribution of wealth I struggle to get past human nature/the insatiable appetites of the human ego.
When I first left high school I worked for a few months unloading trucks in a super market... what I witnessed was a bewildering display of people attempting to seize power or use anything they could to wield it over others, all for positions of such scarce actual worth or power as to make the whole endeavour border on nothing short of insanity. It stunned me. If people were willing to do so much for power when virtually nothing was as stake... What wouldn't they do to preserve to true economic power and wealth I wondered???
I became very interested in conspiracy theories when I was in my twenties, but over time I grew painfully wise enough to know, that it's almost impossible to truly know the truth about anything... and so now I find that I instead tend to filter all information that I am fed or find via my simple observations of human nature. Perhaps I'm far too simplistic. I can appreciate that, but as I also understand things, all systems and ideologies unfortunately share the same common flaw, humanity. This certainly does not mitigate anything John has said, nor the value of better men than I seeking to find a better way forward for all. But I confess, peace loving as I am, it's hard put to see any serious mass change ever taking place as Vitaliy says without a serious global civil war.
I suspect it will be both... And am inclined towards Mao Tse Tungs... "Sometimes you have to build something up, before you can tear it down" point of view. For much like FCP X :) - some things need to be rebuilt from the ground up... But hey, Fight Club is one of my favourite films, so I could well be just another ego engorged human looking for stimulus and meaning through destruction, righteousness and change.
Finally FWIW from someone who may well lack the intellectual clout of yourselves John and Vitaliy... I simply believe in three things to bring about genuine global change, baring in mind that I see a direct correlation between economic wisdom and personal/emotional wisdom...
As such for me it's all about education; on an individual and highly personal emotional level. Suffering; as for better or worse it seems to go hand in hand with education and change for our species. The only way many of us seem willing or able to evolve is kicking and screaming... Human evolution seems to operate with a pretty severe bell curve.
Lastly, capping wealth. But I just can't that ever taking place without bloodshed, as any sustained endeavour in my opinion will either be corrupted, twisted and re marketed for profit by those who have the power, means and motivation to do so - or wars fought over to stop... I'd like to be wrong however.
Thanks for the read by the way... What may become passe or frustrating for you two, I'm sure like myself others find "educational" in a most positive sense and uplifting.
Carry on gentelmen :D
Best
LW
-
EDIT: Re carrying on gentlemen... errmmm... actually, John, carry on alone please...
Comrade Vitaliy your liberation of thousands of film makers from the grips of panasonic oppression is a far weightier matter in this most biased of self serving commercial wannabe film makers eyes :D
Start New Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- Topics List23,964
- Blog5,723
- General and News1,342
- Hacks and Patches1,151
- ↳ Top Settings33
- ↳ Beginners254
- ↳ Archives402
- ↳ Hacks News and Development56
- Cameras2,361
- ↳ Panasonic990
- ↳ Canon118
- ↳ Sony154
- ↳ Nikon96
- ↳ Pentax and Samsung70
- ↳ Olympus and Fujifilm99
- ↳ Compacts and Camcorders299
- ↳ Smartphones for video97
- ↳ Pro Video Cameras191
- ↳ BlackMagic and other raw cameras121
- Skill1,961
- ↳ Business and distribution66
- ↳ Preparation, scripts and legal38
- ↳ Art149
- ↳ Import, Convert, Exporting291
- ↳ Editors191
- ↳ Effects and stunts115
- ↳ Color grading197
- ↳ Sound and Music280
- ↳ Lighting96
- ↳ Software and storage tips267
- Gear5,414
- ↳ Filters, Adapters, Matte boxes344
- ↳ Lenses1,579
- ↳ Follow focus and gears93
- ↳ Sound498
- ↳ Lighting gear314
- ↳ Camera movement230
- ↳ Gimbals and copters302
- ↳ Rigs and related stuff272
- ↳ Power solutions83
- ↳ Monitors and viewfinders339
- ↳ Tripods and fluid heads139
- ↳ Storage286
- ↳ Computers and studio gear560
- ↳ VR and 3D248
- Showcase1,859
- Marketplace2,834
- Offtopic1,319
Tags in Topic
- stupidity 27
