Gue, ra and anyone else, do you understand what is meant by the term "debt based currency" well enough to make an informed choice on the question i asked for a show of hands on? If not i'm sure someone can link you up.

andyh wrote: Apart from everybody agreeing with you and doing what you say, I get what you're saying, everytime you talk about Marxism you are making a song and a dance about knowing fuck all, because you read a Pamphlet and some undefined works of Trotsky, your analysis and what you say is based on a few youtube clips and a quite tangible doom fetish so I struggle to take you seriously at times.
You have a theory about an economy, the reason it's not practised is because you and dubs are the only one's who really know what you're talking about. Or is this theory you and dubs are alluding to defined somewhere?
Yes because all I'm doing is helping you to develop an actual authoritative contribution to the subject of economy, as it stand's you haven't provided one nor have you provided any links to one though the little snippets, youtube clips a tv show by max keiser and graphs are interesting they mean fuck all devoid of context as they are in this thread.

Your last sentence really explains a lot about you andyh, worse than Stalin's attitude to the Kulaks

dubmeup wrote: This is a good illustration of what is meant by it:

Incidentally, that doesn't include personal debt, corporate debt or banking debt, that is purely 49 trillion dollars of government debt, and as it's the Economist it's highly likely to be a conservative estimate. It's actually a piss in a pot compared to the derivatives bubble, as well.

dubmeup wrote: Am i right in thinking the current currency we all use everyday is debt based?

I would say it's clearly obvious that such a currency can work.

dubmeup wrote: Out of interest how did you gain knowledge of the system, were you a banker, accountant, economics student? could you please be thorough?

Guevarista wrote:


For who?

oioioi wrote: It works for everyone who can get it. Ted Turner or Andy Capp.

Guevarista wrote: Would you say people in general are becoming better off financially or worse off?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
On a global scale and relative to the long history of humanity prior to capitalism yes, there is more physical, tangible, real world wealth than ever before.

Guevarista wrote: Am I to understand then that you're pro-'capitalism' and pro-Marxism? (Let's leave aide the fact that we don't have a capitalist society).

Guevarista wrote:
Ah, so were not talking about money

Guevarista wrote:
No, not at times. At all.
You think creation of extra money = more wealth?
Are you really that stupid?
You sound just like one of these jocks they have on fox news.
Whats transhumanism got to do with the economy?
For that matter why would a 'transhumaist' view on things be 'pessimistic' and why the fuck would I have a transhumanist view on things when I've argued AGAINST transhumanism both on here and the DIF for several years?!

Everyone knows what I'm talking about, its called fair play, perhaps you haven't heard of that concept before?


Yes because all I'm doing is helping you to develop an actual authoritative contribution to the subject of economy, as it stand's you haven't provided one nor have you provided any links to one though the little snippets, youtube clips a tv show by max keiser and graphs are interesting they mean fuck all devoid of context as they are in this thread.
[/quote]
They're full of context.
One money got paid cucumber the other got grapes, the monkey immediately got pissed.
Evidently you do not.

Oh so now you admit these socialist dictators are murdering scum then and this whole marxism bollox is really psychopathic bullshit?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I don't think he's any WTF he is lol.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
That doesn't matter.
Gue says it doesn't exist cos MSM is conspiracy theory and transhumanist and all that etc etc.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Marx himself wasn't stupid enough to discount the positive things capitalist modes of production have created, I don't see why I should be as a humble beneficiary of the capitalist exploitation of the entire planet, i drink tea with sugar and smoke tobacco and cannabis that is only possible thanks to commerce

Though I undoubtedly and obviously am opposed to the violent imposition of Bourgeois dictatorship, wage slavery, exploitation and violent imposition of the Capitalist mode of production which has gone on for the last 60years on a global scale, I don't deny it creates an enormous amount of personal and material wealth.

Guevarista wrote:
Gce commerce piqued my interest. Life has continued to pique it. Is that how you spell pique?

Guevarista wrote: You don't believe a word that you're saying. You can't possibly be pro-capitalism and pro-Marxism, it'd be like being pro-choice and pro-life. Your only intention is to disrupt this thread. Please desist from doing so. Dub and Andy are sincere and intelligent people. I'm not going to waste my time discussing anything with you after you profess to be Marxist but also made pro-Monsanto posts, but other people haven't worked out that you're a time-waster yet, so please don't waste their time. On a more draconian forum, I have no doubt you'd be on warning / banned etc. Ring any bells?

Guevarista wrote:
You're taking the piss now.

Its ok oi farmers and growers are used to being ignored.

andyh wrote: Andy you don't even know what you're talking about, you're just repeating words you've heard before