David James claims to have been contacted by the mysterious Foundation X

[BCM]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

fractional reserve banking - in other words, money is made out of thin air and not backed by anything in the UK and US such as gold, silver or any other "precious" metals.. This why when more money is printed, the money supply increases which then devalues the currency (because the more you have of something e.g. money, the value decreases) <[giving rise to inflation]> and the new money effectively takes it's value from the current pool of money already in existence. Basically, all you need to know is that the monetary system and the whole banking system itself is mathematically flawed from the very beginning. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet.

 

indeed

[spratters]

Maybe it's Wayne Rooney??

[chassis]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

 

dunno really, think currency value is linked to GDP and stuff, it's all just numbers in cyberspace really.

 

I dont really know/care about anything business related. But I think this is why the recession happened. People had imaginary stuff that was supposed to be worth loads of money when in reality they had nothing.

[GORDO]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

fractional reserve banking - in other words, money is made out of thin air and not backed by anything in the UK and US such as gold, silver or any other "precious" metals.. This why when more money is printed, the money supply increases which then devalues the currency (because the more you have of something e.g. money, the value decreases) <[giving rise to inflation]> and the new money effectively takes it's value from the current pool of money already in existence. Basically, all you need to know is that the monetary system and the whole banking system itself is mathematically flawed from the very beginning. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet.

 

yes but not quite, it is backed by something, it's backed by the intention to pay it back (plus interest) that is, by the promise that the money will be put to work. eventually most of that money is paid back to the central bank, so it's not constantly adding a flow of cash to the existing pool. it's not as flawed as you think because it kinda balances out when people default their debts. the fucked up part is that it relies on people not being able to repair their debts to keep going.

[dr lopez]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

lol

[Guest Rambo]

 

yes but not quite, it is backed by something, it's backed by the intention to pay it back (plus interest)

 

where does the interest come from?

[GORDO]

 

yes but not quite, it is backed by something, it's backed by the intention to pay it back (plus interest)

 

where does the interest come from?

 

from defaults :(

[Dale]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

fractional reserve banking - in other words, money is made out of thin air and not backed by anything in the UK and US such as gold, silver or any other "precious" metals.. This why when more money is printed, the money supply increases which then devalues the currency (because the more you have of something e.g. money, the value decreases) <[giving rise to inflation]> and the new money effectively takes it's value from the current pool of money already in existence. Basically, all you need to know is that the monetary system and the whole banking system itself is mathematically flawed from the very beginning. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet.

 

yes but not quite, it is backed by something, it's backed by the intention to pay it back (plus interest) that is, by the promise that the money will be put to work. eventually most of that money is paid back to the central bank, so it's not constantly adding a flow of cash to the existing pool. it's not as flawed as you think because it kinda balances out when people default their debts. the fucked up part is that it relies on people not being able to repair their debts to keep going.

of course all loans are made on a promissory basis - for example if the Government wanted to borrow money from the Federal Reserve in the US, or the UK coalition Government want to get some money from the Bank of England, they exchange bonds with the central bank for money - all the bonds stand for are "we promise to pay you back" basically. It's still money being made, effectively, from nothing other than a promise. But you need to think about where the Government get the money to pay off the interest on that loan? This then needs to some how be refinanced by the central bank, and again, the interest on top of that 2nd loan has interest added to it etc etc all a cyclical process of instability -- look at it this way GORDO:

 

I am a bank

You are my customer

Both you and I live in a closed economy

Now, you want some money, so I give you a loan plus interest

You promise to pay me back the loan plus interest, however, if all the money in the money supply of this closed economy is the money I have just loaned to you, how are you going to finance and pay back the interest I added on top? Of course, you can't, and this is where the banking system and the monetary economic system is fundamentally flawed. Just take this example and multiply it many times on a macro-societal scale -- this is the problem + don't forget the important phrase: you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet [you can't keep printing money and expecting everything to be okay] - at some points there are always booms and busts in an unstable lending of money process.

[Guest Rambo]

I am a bank

You are my customer

Both you and I live in a closed economy

Now, you want some money, so I give you a loan plus interest

You promise to pay me back the loan plus interest, however, if all the money in the money supply of this closed economy is the money I have just loaned to you, how are you going to finance and pay back the interest I added on top? Of course, you can't, and this is where the banking system and the monetary economic system is fundamentally flawed. Just take this example and multiply it many times on a macro-societal scale -- this is the problem + don't forget the important phrase: you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet [you can't keep printing money and expecting everything to be okay] - at some points there are always booms and busts in an unstable lending of money process.

 

what i was getting at

[Guest inteeliguntdesign]

:wot: Closed economy--the world economy? Of course you can't pay it back? Money supply not backed by anything? :wot:

 

Money is only printed when one of those few chosen banks take up government bonds, which they then get interest on--the fuckers. Money isn't just created from 'thin air'. Bankers aren't just sitting around printing money whenever their supply of cocaine, mdma and ketamine runs out. Money's simply not backed by a precious metal, as of old. And there are inbuilt mechanisms in the system to punish over-indulgence: we're living through one, unfortunately.

 

The money supply, gifted by the banks, via government bonds, essentially works. If too much is given out that either the government can't pay the interest on, or the banks can't regain the money via customer repayments, then a 'correction' taxes place. Meaning, the government, banks and customers (with varying extents unfortunately) suffer and, ideally, then each respective party alters their stupid behaviour (banks will have decided sub-primes etc were a bad idea.) Also, if too little is given out businesses fold, and with them the money they had in the bank in the first place.

 

This continues as more great schemes are discovered bunk (dot com bubble, sub-primes etc.). Even Marx of all people realised the banking system is prone to booms and busts. Arguably the bonus culture in banking etc have exacerbated the rate of boom and bust. But you're going over the top if you think the fractional reserve banking system/fiat system have created the booms and busts. We had them long before the fractional reserve system--see the England's railway mania and Holland's Tulip mania.

 

Also, your mantra 'you can't have unlimited growth on a finite planet' is a bit redundant, isn't it? Pretty much everyone knows oil etc are required by just about everything and are limited. I can't help but assume this is some kind of deliberately vague argument against the economic system performing any kind of growth what so ever.

[essines]

i wish the US had lords. so badass.

it's fucking stupid and archaic.

[GORDO]

 

if you doubled the amount of gold in the world, you would simply halve the value of all the circulating currency in the world. if one country suddenly had most of the gold in the world, all the others would simply switch to platinum or something.

 

currency is no longer linked to gold reserves btw

 

derp. how is munny formed?

fractional reserve banking - in other words, money is made out of thin air and not backed by anything in the UK and US such as gold, silver or any other "precious" metals.. This why when more money is printed, the money supply increases which then devalues the currency (because the more you have of something e.g. money, the value decreases) <[giving rise to inflation]> and the new money effectively takes it's value from the current pool of money already in existence. Basically, all you need to know is that the monetary system and the whole banking system itself is mathematically flawed from the very beginning. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet.

 

yes but not quite, it is backed by something, it's backed by the intention to pay it back (plus interest) that is, by the promise that the money will be put to work. eventually most of that money is paid back to the central bank, so it's not constantly adding a flow of cash to the existing pool. it's not as flawed as you think because it kinda balances out when people default their debts. the fucked up part is that it relies on people not being able to repair their debts to keep going.

of course all loans are made on a promissory basis - for example if the Government wanted to borrow money from the Federal Reserve in the US, or the UK coalition Government want to get some money from the Bank of England, they exchange bonds with the central bank for money - all the bonds stand for are "we promise to pay you back" basically. It's still money being made, effectively, from nothing other than a promise. But you need to think about where the Government get the money to pay off the interest on that loan? This then needs to some how be refinanced by the central bank, and again, the interest on top of that 2nd loan has interest added to it etc etc all a cyclical process of instability -- look at it this way GORDO:

 

I am a bank

You are my customer

Both you and I live in a closed economy

Now, you want some money, so I give you a loan plus interest

You promise to pay me back the loan plus interest, however, if all the money in the money supply of this closed economy is the money I have just loaned to you, how are you going to finance and pay back the interest I added on top? Of course, you can't, and this is where the banking system and the monetary economic system is fundamentally flawed. Just take this example and multiply it many times on a macro-societal scale -- this is the problem + don't forget the important phrase: you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet [you can't keep printing money and expecting everything to be okay] - at some points there are always booms and busts in an unstable lending of money process.

 

that's the thing, since there's no way to actually pay all the interests (at least not with money anyway, if you could pay with the wealth generated... i.e stuff) the sytem needs people not being able to repay them. so some people must go bankrupt and NOT pay their debts. banks account for this risk in their projections and whatnot.

 

so look at this:

 

we both take a loan.

with my loan i build a succesfull tv shop emporium.

with your loan you buy lots of tv's from me for some reason.

i can then pay the interests with the money you gave me. you can't. bank is somehow still happy (probably because he seized all those tvs you bought)

take this example and multiply it any times over.

 

re:growth. it is not the monetary system that relies on infinite growth, it's the very idea of what growth means and how we measure it. any country will measure it's success on the change of GDP, that is wether it produced more or less stuff in given year. that has been the case for a long time, probably even before fiat was the standard. many modern economists propose we change these ideas, that we should change what we understand as economical growth. stiglitz is one, i think.

 

anyway why do you always feel the need to explain me things i've already showed an understanding of?.

[tontonz1]

i wish the US had lords. so badass.

it's fucking stupid and archaic.

 

what's there not to like?

 

[essines]

ok good point. i'm in

[Dale]

:wot: Closed economy--the world economy? Of course you can't pay it back? Money supply not backed by anything? :wot:

I used the idea of a closed off economy to explain my analogy better. Just take what I said and multiply it on a bigger scale - this is how big the problem is

 

Money is only printed when one of those few chosen banks take up government bonds, which they then get interest on--the fuckers. Money isn't just created from 'thin air'. Bankers aren't just sitting around printing money whenever their supply of cocaine, mdma and ketamine runs out. Money's simply not backed by a precious metal, as of old. And there are inbuilt mechanisms in the system to punish over-indulgence: we're living through one, unfortunately.

you have not explained why money is figuratively not made from "nothing". What are you saying? I agree the only thing backing up a new loan is a "promise" from the repayer - but this promise is not tangible in any way physically. This promise of the loan-taker does not help to regulate the printing of new money. Back when the US had the gold standard, there were not severe booms/busts because printing money was regulated to how much gold was discovered. Now that we have removed this collateral, banks can basically increase the money supply with little restrictions. What are you referring to when considering punishments for over-indulgence? How come bankers are getting paid huge bonuses in UK still?? Same in US - there's hardly been a "punishment" because banks hold governments literally by their balls. Reminds me of a famous quote by someone: "Give me control of the money supply and I care not what a country or government does" - in other words if you can control the flow of money and new loans in an economy, you are effectively the dominant component in a society.

 

The money supply, gifted by the banks, via government bonds, essentially works. If too much is given out that either the government can't pay the interest on, or the banks can't regain the money via customer repayments, then a 'correction' taxes place. Meaning, the government, banks and customers (with varying extents unfortunately) suffer and, ideally, then each respective party alters their stupid behaviour (banks will have decided sub-primes etc were a bad idea.) Also, if too little is given out businesses fold, and with them the money they had in the bank in the first place.

Wrong - the banking system works? You provide no evidence for this. Look around you, and the mess and boom/busts and inflationary cycles that have been going on for years and years - I find it hard not to laugh at your statement there. Why should the populace be responsible for the shortcomings and inevitable busts of banks?? It clearly isn't a sustainable system if banks did not periodically fail. By the way, banks do make bets and create derivatives on stock markets, and weigh up their share prices based on the promise by the loan-taker to pay them the loan -- but they are not paying the loan back obviously, because the money was not created from an existing money supply the bank holds. So this is one of the reasons why you gets busts -- people aren't paying banks what they're expecting, and banks fragrently go about their stock market business basing their share prices and various other attributes on the promissory paper given to you.

 

This continues as more great schemes are discovered bunk (dot com bubble, sub-primes etc.). Even Marx of all people realised the banking system is prone to booms and busts. Arguably the bonus culture in banking etc have exacerbated the rate of boom and bust. But you're going over the top if you think the fractional reserve banking system/fiat system have created the booms and busts. We had them long before the fractional reserve system--see the England's railway mania and Holland's Tulip mania.

Boom/busts are inevitable. If you back money with an asset such as gold, the monetary expansion is limited to what you discover as far as gold is concerned -- today you don't have such collateral measures - so boom/busts are more likely to be reoccurrent today than many years ago. I don't have time now but will return with evidence of this.

 

Also, your mantra 'you can't have unlimited growth on a finite planet' is a bit redundant, isn't it? Pretty much everyone knows oil etc are required by just about everything and are limited. I can't help but assume this is some kind of deliberately vague argument against the economic system performing any kind of growth what so ever.

Growth is fine - if you live in an economy where resources are managed intelligently and not just greedily consumed and exploited for profit purposes which we have today. Capitalism, and any monetary system in general does not take into account the carrying capacity of the Earth - this is basic science and sustainable measures that are clouded by money. Money is a distortion, a complete contrivance. We're making it up and it's harming the planet.

[Dale]

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running our of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard. It's a system that just keeps going and going, not giving a shit about resource depletion rates - everything is about profit, and the planet/human concern is secondary to this.

[Guest Gary C]

Chris Morris.

[BCM]

btw I work for Foundation X.

[kaen]

sounds like some shadowy spectre-like organisation

 

in reality its probably just scientology

[azatoth]

Why has there not been more of a stink that this guy admits that he's been laundering money for the IRA and North African terrorists, all with the Bank of England's sanction?

 

Also this foundation X thing sounds like a Nigerian scam, but on a international level. "We can give you £5billion, but we need you to deposit X amount to get the paper work done" LOL.

[GORDO]

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running our of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard. It's a system that just keeps going and going, not giving a shit about resource depletion rates - everything is about profit, and the planet/human concern is secondary to this.

 

this is strange to read coming from someone who believes we have all the resources and technology available to live in perpetual abundance.

 

if that were true, then system would attend to problems like that like it always has: through capitalism and free market. I find it strange that a believer in the venus project can't believe in simple power of human ingenuity.

 

it is aslo not true that the system (whatever that word means) doesn't react to resource depletion. a good example is the wood industry, and it is well documented. The main cause for deforestation is not evil greedy coorporations that chop down every tree available, because at some point those enterprises that make wood their business realize that they have to take care of it if they want to keep making money. the main cause for deforestation is poverty if you were wondering.

 

but wood is a renewable resource, so this reasoning can't be applied to all resources. sure.

[Siegecow]

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running our of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard.

 

When prices get too high obviously. When will people actually give a shit about electric/hybrid cars? Maybe when gas is 10/20 bucks a gallon? Why are pomegranites 3 bucks each when bannas at 79 cents a pound? Why do puppers cost twice as much in winter as they do in summer? Why are coal plants prefferred over solar panel farms? The less affordable something is the less people will use it and look for alternative solutions that will be cheaper.

[Dale]

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running our of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard. It's a system that just keeps going and going, not giving a shit about resource depletion rates - everything is about profit, and the planet/human concern is secondary to this.

this is strange to read coming from someone who believes we have all the resources and technology available to live in perpetual abundance.

I have never said living in "perpetual" abundance - that is a fantasy. It's a finite planet - of course we can adopt renewable, sustainable methods and technologies though. Many important resources such as metals are finite, but science will eventually overcome this by finding/researching synthetically created substitutes in the lab - nanotechnology? Now I'm going off on a tangent -- so just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the idea of "perpetual abundance". The world population has to live in accordance to what the planet can offer.

 

if that were true, then system would attend to problems like that like it always has: through capitalism and free market. I find it strange that a believer in the venus project can't believe in simple power of human ingenuity.

When you talk about the free market, what are you attributing the methods of resource preservation to exactly? The so-called "invisible hand" of the freemarket ideology has zero scientific physical referents involved - it's just a philosophy which is not scientific - something that is not scientifically founded has zero basis when organising society globally. I'm having trouble seeing how the monetary system is able to consider the planet and it's resources to ensure resources are not over consumed? If you can point to me some more info - I'll be willing to listen.

 

it is aslo not true that the system (whatever that word means) doesn't react to resource depletion. a good example is the wood industry, and it is well documented. The main cause for deforestation is not evil greedy coorporations that chop down every tree available, because at some point those enterprises that make wood their business realize that they have to take care of it if they want to keep making money. the main cause for deforestation is poverty if you were wondering.

But the idea of capitalism is the promotion of expansion which then gives rise to corruption and distortions/exploitation of the environment. Let's take your wood industry example -- you have to stay ahead of competition, increase sales and supply to meet increasing demands, so you will do all that you can to keep the money coming in. If this means destroying the habitat of animals and endangered species, then so be it. But don't tell me the money system some how magically corrects itself (remember money is not founded upon scientific means) when it comes to social and environmental problems -- just look around you at the world today and how many environmental problems there are which are directly or indirectly linked to money + profit. If you are an energy company that wants to get rid of toxic waste the cheapest way possible, you can always dump it in the sea to cut costs as it could be expensive to expose of it properly without causing harm to the environment. So you see, the profit motive is a corrupt attribute of the monetary system. This is so very obvious and I would be willing to listen to a constructive dispute of this.

 

but wood is a renewable resource, so this reasoning can't be applied to all resources. sure.

Exactly, this is another important thing to consider.

 

Simply put, the money system does not allow for the intelligent management and preservation of Earth's resources, nor does it promote the equal distribution of resources to everyone globally.

[Dale]

Tell me this: at what point does the monetary system make people think "oh shit we're running out of resources here" - it doesn't take this onboard.

 

When prices get too high obviously. When will people actually give a shit about electric/hybrid cars? Maybe when gas is 10/20 bucks a gallon? Why are pomegranites 3 bucks each when bannas at 79 cents a pound? Why do puppers cost twice as much in winter as they do in summer? Why are coal plants prefferred over solar panel farms? The less affordable something is the less people will use it and look for alternative solutions that will be cheaper.

But how does the monetary system address the following:

- Over-consumption by individuals due to materialistic needs |(which I have to emphasise are conditioned materialistic needs)| - you have too many people over consuming beyond their own needs

- This constributes to resource depletion occurring at a faster rate - hence why I say the current economic system we have currently does not allow the preservation of resources we all need to consume

 

Higher prices does not necessarily promote resource preservation, nor prevent individual over consumption. It simply is not good enough having high rates of resource depletion without considering replenishment.

 

A logical, scientific, sustainable direction would be to promote resource preservation, and to make sure over-consumption is limited. This means educating children from a young age on the consequences of rapid resource depletion without preparing for the eventual scarcity to come thereafter.

 

Here's the problem: new progressive technologies are withheld in the name of profit. If you have put a lot of money into manufacturing a certain type of technology, but then suddenly there is an alternative technology that does the job better than the one currently being sold, the company with the outdated technology will do all it can to withhold the sale of the new technology as they want their item sold more than the new, progressive technology. Apply this example with the electric car - there is no reason why we all couldn't be driving in clean electric cars fuelled by renewable energy sources other than the profit motive (which is a key attribute of the monetary system). Have you ever seen this film?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

Who Killed the Electric Car? is a 2006 documentary film that explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

 

So are you still happy that the monetary system does deal with rapid resource depletion in a scientifically proven/efficient manner given the above information I have addressed? I find it amusing all these defensive remarks on how good the monetary system is when it is self-evident how shit and inefficient it really is. There are better solutions out there, research them and educate yourself. Stop putting ego before thought.

[Guest Scrambled Ears]

buy high sell low...er wait