On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
>> I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are stealing
>> our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth breeds more
>> wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me.
>> Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social system.
>> Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and when it
>> is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
>> Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and quicker
>> for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly", everyone win, and
>> poverty regress.
>> In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means that
>> there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the system
>> and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their
>> responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel like
>> not guilty.
>> As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to the
>> blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells feeds it.
>> It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target.
> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money.
> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we remove
> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to social
> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely you
> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks the
> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies "rich get
> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful have
> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things happen:
> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies the effect.
> Ever since
> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by owning
> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land. If you owned land then
> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land. Then merchantilism
> added ships to what you could own. Then industrialization added mines and
> oil and factories. Banking and insurance added financial instruments that
> you could own. But it's all of a piece. If you own stuff that you can
> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The
more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend
to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money
decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with
new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually
have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have.
> Of course you can also
> influence government and governments exist largely to protect your property
> - The money I have in my pocket is not safe. They can devalue it and there
> is nothing I can do about it. They have a strong incentive to devalue my
> money because they can give the new money they created to their allies,
> through sophisticated mechanisms. It is very cleverly disguised, but it's
> still plain old theft;
> That means you have a strong incentive to invest/spend your money. And that
> applies also to a rich person that has a lot of money - inflation encourages
> him to spend it on something.
Right, and this prevents the bulk of the population from escaping wage
slavery even though technology could replace labour.
> So one of the reasons for the current
> recession is that wealth is very concentrated by inflation is quite low, so
> corporations and wealthy persons are not motivated to take much risk on
> investing their money; they can easily wait and see.
I would argue that a deeper reason is that technology made many jobs
disappear, but the inflationary economic system we live under cannot
> - The more wealthy, who can invest, can leverage their investments by orders
> of greatness. The more money you have, the more you can leverage it (by
> effectively creating new "fake" money). The poor are the most vulnerable to
> the inevitable systemic collapse that a debt-based economy will create. The
> poor implicitly risk their homes and means of survival when the rich play
> the big casino game of leveraged investments, derivative markets and so on.
> But that money isn't fake.
Yes, maybe a better word is stolen, because it was created by diluting
the value of the money in people's banks accounts, but it is then
given to other people.
> The poor may lose their home which has real
> value. And even if they don't lose their home they end up paying
> excessively for the money they borrowed to buy it - that's real labor value.
> The rich gain real money, not just fake. All over Southern California
> houses whose value dropped and are threatened with foreclosure are being
> bought up for cash. It's not poor people who can pay $500,000 in cash for a
> Bitcoin might solve these two problems.
> Naah. It's just another medium of exchange.
Unlike the existing mediums of exchange after the end of the gold
standard, a central authority cannot issue more bitcoins. Bitcoins can
only be produced by mining, with a predictable and increasing
computational effort, and up to a certain amount. So in some point in
the future the last bitcoin will be mined, and that's it. If I own a
bitcoin right now, I do not have to fear that it will get devalued by
political decisions. Also, it is not possible for a bank to lend
bitcoin that it doesn't own or that were lend to it, so there is no
I'm not saying that Bitcoin is a silver bullet that will solve all of
the problems, but I find it hard to argue that it does not prevent
inflation by the actions of central authorities and that it does not
prevent the ability of the rich to leverage their investments by 1000x
like they can do in derivative markets with fiat currency.
> Whoever owns a lot of stuff
> will still be able to use it to get more -
Yes, this is true even without money, as I said before.
> without actually producing the
> extra value, rather by taking it from those who have little.
One advantage of having rich people is that they can tolerate more
risk. This allows for the allocation of resources to speculative ideas
that could improve everyone's lives in the future. But with central
banking and bailouts the risk is not real, and we are just slaves.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.