andyh wrote:
Cough

So what is this moral application of money I am now to use?
"a sound method of using money as a means of exchange"
And what exactly constitutes sound money?

Guevarista wrote:
Gue for a clever bloke, sometimes you dont arf come over fick. The answer to your questions are what this first part of the thread is about. Its all in the op. I suggest you get up to speed and then decide if you have anything to say.

What constitutes sound exchange?

andyh wrote:
Yes Dubs in America the topic of fractional reserve banking is certainly on the fringe of conspiracy subculture.

Yet, Millions of American have watched movies like Zeitgeist and all the other ones on Netflix with similar info.

Like I said before in 5-10 years all of the next generation here will have unlimited computer technology.

In a way they already do so things are going to start organically happening regardless.

andyh wrote:
When i mentioned sound method of exchange it was kind of blended together in me head so yeah, agreed.

Guevarista wrote:
Good question

This is the part that leads back to the 'no money' train of thought that dubs doesn't want to approach for the moment lol...

Sound money IMHO would be debt free treasury fiat that is circulated in a system with no fractional reserve banking whatsoever.

The gold and silver often mentioned I don't go for, for the simple reason that not enough of it exists to go around in amounts worthy of carrying around for small goods and that problem will only be exacerbated over time so you then hear about a gold or silver 'backed' currency which is completely meaningless and involves some central dicking with the money problem all over again.

Debt free treasury notes can be a long term solution but it is reliant on the people never again falling for the bankers tricks, so again we come back on the old education problem.

For an economy to function well it has to return to some good old fashioned common sense.
You buy, you take delivery. You sell...you sell something tangible.
A busker on a street corner sells something more tangible than futures contracts.

Prices of many things inevitably would plummet, bankers would stop loaning out money all over the place and making gargantuan profits and politicians would actually become responsible for inflation via taxation.

oioioi wrote: yeah somebody else ask the questions for me i just get cunted when dubs see's it's me he's responding to again.

Dubs I really don't have much of a clue about economics, I don't really get your problem with Fractional Reserve, i've never really heard you're critique of it just really the repetition of quite obscure Austrian School and some Ron Paul rhetoric about sound money, what do you think of Steve Keen he seems to disagree with Max Keiser on the fundamental issues?

Tbh In my opinion with proper control of the regulatory apparatus fractional reserve banking would work, but that means people like use organising and politically overthrowing the interests of private wealth accumulation.

oioioi wrote:
The people involved being happy and no loss or harm caused as a result of the medium of exchange used

oioioi wrote:
I can just see dub half grinning and half grimacing at you now

The answer to this one is truly epic, you could probably discuss it for days.

Guevarista wrote: It works now. It does exactly what it's intended to do. It's just unfortunate that this is detrimental to the vast majority of us.

dubmeup wrote:
That works for the immediate exchange I suppose, no loss or harm would have to be extended to others outside the exchange too though

dubmeup wrote:
I dig...

Not digging this whole exchange vibe. It means placing a value on stuff/means of production/elbow grease/produce ergo placing a value on ourselves, offspring and peers. I don't see them as tradeable commodities and never really want to.

Guevarista wrote:
omfg lol!!

Picture this.
I'm the only guy on the entire planet with an apple orchard.
Apples are needed to trade for anything else in life on this planet.

The leaders of the groups of people come to me and ask to borrow apples, I tell 'em sure, but if I give you 2 apples, I want 3 back later. The leaders being the idiots they are agree to this, as do their dumbass followers.

Now just where the fuck do you think they get the third apple from to pay me back?

Guevarista wrote:
Tbf, one of our main deviancies in thiught gue is that yiu know who those people you mention are and i don't. They are just names to me. You look to names for your points of reference and i look to my own common sense. Mostly cos i dont have the attention span for holding one thought tothe next moment.

Like i said I really don't understand it, I don't know how accurate or whatever your analogy is, tbh I don't think it is considering how complex the process seems to be, what do you think of Steve Keen?

wake_up_bomb wrote: It gives rise to class antagonisms the end of which are as yet undetermined but there are things we can do to be catalysts.

andyh wrote:
Absolutely. At no point in the means if exchange coukd any loss or harm be resultant

Tbh, i am gonna have to ignore oi. He's making it hard to maintain my support for currency in any form

Guevarista wrote:
It is perfectly accurate.
Its fractional reserve 101 beginning with the central bank.

What you have to do now is take your 2 apples and deposit them in the high street bank and magically more apples appear out of nowhere! These guys don't even have an orchard

BUT...they're only coming if you pay them back more apples...so yep, you go right back and borrow more bloody apples!

Soon the world is awash with apples all over the fekking place but all they are doing is landing right back in the apple orchard with a few in the pockets of the leaders and slivers of apple skin and cores for everyone else.

Because there's so many apples all over the place the 'market' now says apples are worth less because there's so many of them (despite them all going back in the orchard from whence it all started) and despite the vast majority of people having no bloody apples.

Now you might think this is simple but this is a very good analogy.

It is nothing to do with ayn rand or ron paul, it is right out of the bank of englands own handbook.

If you want to understand the monetary system, this would be a good start:








www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/19/us-sh...dUSBRE8AI0SL20121119
That's all just mainstream news and information, Market Oracle, Moneyweek, US government official figures, OECD, Reuters.