Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Felix

Regulars
  • Posts

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Felix

  1. Felix

    Debitism

    Well, the moment that person takes $100 from the bank, he has accepted a debt of $105 if he pays back in a year. $5 plus for the bank.
  2. Felix

    Debitism

    My point is that it isn't just spent. As it reenters the market the debt rises. And everytime it reenters the circulation, the total debt owed to the bank rises. You only look at the coins and ignore the debt. But the debt is the point. Circulating them faster doesn't work. This only drives people into deeper and deeper debt. That "enough money" you talk about can only come into circulation if someone else takes on debt in the meantime. Otherwise the money to pay the interest wouldn't leave the bank. There may, then, be enough money in circulation for that very first person to pay back his debt on time. But not for the new debtors. This description is completely missing the point. As I said, you think that money is like coins, just circulating and moving around like the electrons in your example. You completely neglect the main point of piled up debt in the process.
  3. Felix

    Debitism

    Oops, your post got lost in a flood. Well, why should he? Why doesn't he lend some of that money at interest?
  4. Felix

    Debitism

    I read the part on money. He says that money is a good (produced and traded practically like every other good) which is used to make barter easier. I reject this as a model of today's money, which is something I have already stated right in my subtitle. If you want to join the discussion, you can do so. Please explain how, according to you, today's money enters circulation. But please refrain from just saying "this is all stupid, nobody would do it." It's a rigged game? Sure it is. But so is taxation. And the lottery. Both systems that exist today despite being rigged and stupid. "I don't like it." and "It is stupid." are unfortunately not arguments to reject the reality of a fact. Why do the titans sit down at the table to just hand over money to Mr. Thompson? This is just as stupid and I don't like it either. But that's not an argument against the existence of the fact that it actually happens. So the saved money doesn't just go back into circulation. It has to be borrowed for this to happen. And again you have money in circulation demanding interest payment. Which was one of my points right from the beginning of this thread.
  5. Felix

    Debitism

    A penny saved is a penny lent. Banks don't spend your deposits. They lend it. If they spent it, it would be gone. The money doesn't just "remain in circulation", instead it is lent at interest. That lent money is then spent on R&D etc., yes. But -again- more money is owed than is entering circulation (via lending).
  6. Felix

    Debitism

    It's impossible to create gold out of thin air. But it is possible to have a monopoly on borrowing gold coins. Read Trudy's Borrowed Gold Scenario. In a barter economy, this problem wouldn't exist, because money would just be yet another good. We don't live in a barter economy. You can't explain a non-barter system with barter. Okay, in the end. But still saving allows you not to have to work when you are old. This also has nothing to do with the problems we are discussing. It's another issue. We live in a technically more advanced world, yes. That allows us to buy things that weren't in existence in earlier times. The queen of England has both. In today's system, money derives its value from the fact that it has to be paid back or else. It is not backed. I take money as primary, because in today's system it is - as it is in any system where the means of exchange has to be borrowed.
  7. Felix

    Debitism

    There are still other problems in a borrowed money scenario. First of all, since all money is borrowed, you don't really benefit from a rise of its value. Because you spent it when it was worth less (at the time you borrowed it) and not only have to get it back but also now (since time has passed) it has also become more valuable, so you have to try really hard to get it back. People will also want to save money. But since you have to pay your entire principal back on time, you'd have to work really hard to make these people spend it on your products instead. This pressure is it which makes ordinary people produce extraordinary results in capitalism. The third thing we have neglected is that all you will be doing is breaking even. You work like hell to get the principal back, but then all that happened is that you break even and have nothing to show for it. In all these discussions we have not discussed profit. And if some profit, they will have the money in their hands others desperately need to pay back their debt. They are like the people who want to save money and are in the position of having the others with debt work like hell just to get hands on their money. Remember, as long as all money is borrowed, once it's paid back, it's out of circulation.
  8. Felix

    Debitism

    That would mean that no interest is being paid and that you are glad that prices just go down. Interest means that you pay additional money (or at least additional stuff). What you describe is deflation, not interest. That's right. Gold can't be created out of thin air. That's why a gold standard is ten times better than a fiat system. You can read a description of this in Trudy's borrowed gold scenario. He described what I mean here.
  9. Don't worry, Maarten. This is not the chat. =)
  10. Felix

    Debitism

    A borrowed/lent gold economy does have similar problems, yes. Trudy described that in his borrowed gold scenario. If you have interest to be paid in gold, you have the same problem as in a fiat money system. There's not enough money out there unless the banks spend all the interest money, which they can't for the reasons I've outlined above. You mean in a gold standard system? If the new money entering the economy was spent and not lent, then there would be no problem. If it was lent, the problem would remain the same, only with gold instead of paper. Because at some point (due to exponential growth of the money needed to enter the economy) there won't be enough gold to enter the economy. The only difference between the fiat money standard and the gold standard as it was is whether the money is backed by gold or not. If it's not backed at all, this of course allows effortless money creation and makes the problem ten times worse (and adds more problems). But I think that the fundamental problem is the lending of the medium of exchange with interest to be paid in that very medium. It's a systematic flaw.
  11. Felix

    Debitism

    I really don't get it. If you don't understand what Trudy is saying, just ask. Why do you accuse him instead? Well, I don't want to screw up the discussion. But then, it's quite screwed up already. First, a general thing: The basic difference between Trudy's (and my) view and yours is that we believe that if debt is paid, the money leaves the circulation forever. Our model of money is fundamentally different from yours. That's what causes all these misunderstandings. For you, money is something like a good. It's nothing special. It can be traded just like a spoon or a car or a piece of fruit. The reason for this is, of course the idea that money is a gold coin, that a gold coin has value and that it is traded just like everything else. I can only speak for myself here, but here's my model of money: Money is not a good. And as far as I have read, coin money didn't originate as a means of exchange but as a means to pay taxes. (Unfortunately all my resources are in German, but I'm trying to find an English source.) Paper money should be a claim to some actual good. It isn't. You receive no goods for it from the bank that issues them (in the case of the Dollar, it's the Fed). The "reserves", of which around 80% consist of government debt, have nothing but accounting significance. And the Fed doesn't spend the money, it lends it. That's where all the Dollars in circulation basically come from. They are created (printed) and then lent. That's how they gain their "value" in spite of the fact that they are not backed. They gain their value because they have to be paid back. In addition to there's the key interest rate, which can very well be interpreted as some sort of tax. Money isn't created in a mint, where dug up gold is being minted and then spent. It doesn't enter the circulation by spending but by lending. That's the fundamental difference between our views of money. You think it's created and then spent, we hold that it's lent. I'm still reading up on this, but this is how it works as far as I can see. To answer your question: For your example to work, these additional 20% of John's debt would have to enter the circulation. If Midas didn't spend any money, John would be bankrupt after a maximum of 10 years, because there would be no more money in circulation. For this not to happen, Midas would have to spend John's entire interest within the 12 years. This would make this case the equivalent of John paying his interest with goods and services. If this were the case, there would in fact be no problem as far as I can see. But Midas has to pay part of that interest to his customers and can therefore not spend it. And they won't spend it because they want to save it for retirement, for example. In addition to that, a bank is a company, trying to grow, that is to make more and more money over time. So if Midas just spent all the money, his bank wouldn't grow. He would, in fact, be a bad banker. You may also want to read this previous reply to a similar question.
  12. Felix

    Debitism

    Come on, guys, please! All these accusations are leading nowhere. If you don't understand something, just ask. And please just stick to the issue and leave all these jeering-fights out. You know that this is leading nowhere.
  13. Some Communism Jokes: Brezhnev asked the Pope, 'Why do people believe in a Catholic paradise, but refuse to believe in a communist paradise?' 'Because we don't show our paradise!' --- 'Is communism a science?' 'No. If it were a science, it would have been tested on dogs first.' --- What nationality were Adam and Eve? Most certainly Russian! Only Russians can run about barefooted and bare assed, without a roof over their heads, where there is only one apple for two and nevertheless cry out that they are in paradise! --- There was a question on Armenian radio for which there was no answer: If all countries became socialist, where would we buy grain? --- An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian are praising their wives. 'When my wife goes for a ride,' the Englishman says, 'her legs drag on the ground. Not because the horse is small, but because my wife has long beautiful legs!' 'I embrace my wife around the waist with only two fingers,' says the Frenchman, 'not because I have a big hand, but because my wife has a slim waist!' 'Before leaving for work,' says the Russian, 'I slap my wife's behind. And when I come back from work, her behind is still shaking. It's not because my wife has a big flabby ass, but because in the USSR we have the shortest working day in the world!' --- When did the first Soviet elections take place? When God put Eve before Adam and said: 'Choose yourself a wife!' --- Brezhnev and Nixon are standing near Niagara Falls with their bodyguards when they decide to test them. They both order them to jump into the falls. The American bodyguard refuses, saying, 'I have a family and children!' The Russian rushes towards the Falls without thinking, but at the last moment he's stopped. 'How did you decide to do such a thing without even thinking?' asks Nixon. 'I have a family and children!' --- Under the specified theory of historical materialism between Socialism and Communism the intermediate stage is inevitably-alcoholism. --- SOCIALISM: You have two cows. State takes one and gives it to someone else. COMMUNISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and gives you milk. FASCISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and sells you milk. NAZISM: You have two cows. State takes both of them and shoots you. ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows. CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk. BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. EUROPEAN FEDERALISM: You have two cows which cost too much money to care for because everybody is buying milk imported from some cheap east-European country and would never pay the fortune you'd have to ask for your cows' milk. So you apply for financial aid from the European Union to subsidise your cows and are granted enough subsidies. You then sell your milk at the former elevated price to some government-owned distributor which then dumps your milk onto the market at east-European prices to make Europe competitive. You spend the money you got as a subsidy on two new cows and then go on a demonstration to Brussels complaining that the European farm-policy is going drive you out of your job.
  14. Well, okay. If you are in a tough financial situation you may have to take some time to get through this. But as far as I read, you seem to have an interest in learning to be good at selling. Now there are two ways I read your situation:
  15. There's a book called "The Einstein Factor" by Win Wenger. It's about a method he has developed which is called Image Streaming which basically consist of closing your eyes and describing (speaking it out loud) what you see (in your mind's eye). This, according to Wenger, makes you more aware of things going on in your head which you are usually unconcious of (subconcious). He even has a study made by a professor of physics with his students, which showed that those who did 15 minutes of Image Streaming a day raised their IQ measurably.
  16. If you can be more specific about what your job consists of and how you think about I might be able to give you some better advice as motivation is usually task-specific. The one thing I want to point out is that your lack of motivation doesn't seem to be the major problem. The problem seems to be that your lack of motivation seems to be a sufficient reason for you not to do the work. But this doesn't hold water. After all, you were able to go through all those shitty jobs before. To get things done consistently, you have to learn to stick to old-fashioned discipline (and it looks like you have that) instead of motivation. It is helpful to see motivation as the icing on the cake. This way, you will always get all your work done even though you may very often not feel like it. Of course, if this lack of motivation keeps on, it would make sense to switch jobs to find something that fits you better. But even in your dream job, you will sometimes have to do things you don't especially like or have days when you're not motivated. Thinking "I shouldn't have to do this." just keeps your mind off your task. But for more specific advice, tell what exactly has happened (your description was very vague), and I'll be glad to offer further advice.
  17. I guess this is the appropriate time as the smiley-density is already quite high. Since I don't have a digicam and no digital picture of mine, yet, I'd post two smileys that resemble me the most: and
  18. Well, but then I don't really lose the feeling that Jackass and especially Wildboys is nothing but gay SM. (with animals in Wildboys, which makes this even more suspicious)
  19. How? He allows the possibility of actual knowledge with that statement. He just accepts that his knowledge is finite. Sounds reasonable to me.
  20. It took me a long time to understand why you spend so much time thinking and debating about the wrongness of Christianity. But the more I learn about what's going on in the US, the more I realize that you live in an environment filled with Christian nutcases. This is something completely unknown where I come from. The fact alone that this woman got TV time . This would never happen in Germany (We have other wackos, I suppose, but from what I have seen, we have less of them, at least less of the hard cases on TV, except maybe in talk shows). You must really be getting pissed sometimes when you hear that stuff all the time.
  21. Apologies accepted. No bad feelings. Everything's fine. Just try to make sure that in the future when changes are made to threads, write a small note in the thread that you changed something. This helps to avoid unneccessary trouble
  22. Felipe said he didn't do it. It didn't clarify the topic. In fact it made it less clear and mocked the topic itself right from the beginning.
×
×
  • Create New...