Yes Voters to Lisbon, Do you want this to happen to your currency?

Mahatma coat

so goin back to the Insurance comparison,

What Percentage of the population would need to loose faith in the system and either default on their loans or withdraw all their cash for the sytem to go tits up.

what happens to the rest of the people and the economy if this happens?

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so goin back to the Insurance comparison,

What Percentage of the population would need to loose faith in the system and either default on their loans or withdraw all their cash for the sytem to go tits up.

I don't know enough specifics about Irish banks' liquidity to answer this. There's also the further problem that it's not a percentage of the population as savings are not evenly distributed.

It can be calculated mathematically though. I'm sure the banks do this calculation because if they f*ck up, they lose money. It's in nobody's interest to be over-exposed and there's been a fairly harsh lesson in that over the past year.

In fact the banks' and consumers' interests are so aligned here it's comparable to a situation where a burglar earns more money by not breaking into your house. There are concerns that the burglar (the bank) is incompetent, but not that they stand to gain. Only if these big, mean, profit-hungry banks want to lose profit have we cause to concern.

what happens to the rest of the people and the economy if this happens?

Ireland's effect on the Euro is pretty negligible. The ECB would ensure the banks suffer but that no consumer loses money. They'd do this because money's worth is backed up by people's faith in it. If even this one in a million thing of the Irish population completely changing their mind and going "ah, f*ck the euro, I don't like the look of it, let's stop using it as a means of exchange, regardless of whether or not it's backed by statute" can be fixed by the ECB controlling inflation/etc then there's not that much to worry about.

One of the good things about EMU is that even if Ireland experienced Zimbabwe-esque inflation, it's a drop in the European ocean. Let's say in Ireland the price of a loaf of bread soars to €1000. Your euro might be "worthless" here, but it's still very useful in Germany. Imports would drive down inflation as Germans are happy to export bread for €2.

Also you'll be happy to note that unlike the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, the ECB's sole mandate is to control inflation. That's why they just raised the rates. The euro won't fail because of bad monetary policy. The only case that's going to happen is if all 500m people who use the euro suddenly stop valuing it. Seriously, what are the odds of that? I imagine they're about as statistically insignificant as all 500m of us not giving a crap about gold.

How many people do you know have lost money because of floating exchange rates or fractional reserves?

You're better off worrying about global warming.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What Percentage of the population would need to loose faith in the system and either default on their loans or withdraw all their cash for the sytem to go tits up.

If you don't know the answer, you're not really in a position to argue that the system is broken.

So...I would suggest that this is a question for those who are arguing that an obviously-functioning system should not be trusted.

Mahatma coat

Antithetic I think thats a bit spurious of an argument, OK Ireland is a small player inthe Euro, but are you saying that if the entire population of Ireland lst faith in the Euro no one on the continent would sit up and wonder why, and if there was a reasonably good reason why the Irish had lost faith do you not think that it would effect the rest of the continent

if the difference between the price of a loaf of bread in Dresden and Dublin was 998 Euro then how could you see consumer confidence not being affected across the entire continent.

---

Right Bonkey, you obviously know the answer then, care to enlighten the rest of us?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but are you saying that if the entire population of Ireland lst faith in the Euro no one on the continent would sit up and wonder why,

I'd imagine that if an entire nation, or even the majority who chose to vote in a referendum, lost confidence, the why would be known before the result.

For example...if people were to lose confidence in UBS right now, the "why" would be - with almost-certainty - the massive losses that they've racked up in the sub-prime fiasco, and the other skeletons in the closet that this in turn is dragging out to the light of day.

UBS is an excellent example of what we're discussing here. A massively successful bank, which has written off horrific amounts of value in the last few months...and you know what...investors are literally queuing up to buy the debt, because it will give them a potentially-massively-profitable business for a snap.

Indeed...the entire sub-prime fiasco has been estimated at costing the international banks one trillion dollars in write-offs....and the upshot has been investors looking to buy in cheaply.

So really...while its easy to ask the question of "what if enough people lost confidence", you should first ask what would cause this loss of confidence. I would suggest that the collapse of the banking system would be the least of our worries in any credible scenario which would lead to the loss of confidence in the banks.

Right Bonkey, you obviously know the answer then, care to enlighten the rest of us?

No. I don't care.

I'm making it clear that those who take the line that you're taking are generally trying to raise some scare-mongering argument without actually knowing the details behind it...that they don't know what it would take to bring about the situation that they are trying to argue makes the system suspect.

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

I'd imagine that if an entire nation, or even the majority who chose to vote in a referendum, lost confidence, the why would be known before the result.

Same as how theres a clear WHY that people voted no th Lisbon

For example...if people were to lose confidence in UBS right now, the "why" would be - with almost-certainty - the massive losses that they've racked up in the sub-prime fiasco, and the other skeletons in the closet that this in turn is dragging out to the light of day.

UBS is an excellent example of what we're discussing here. A massively successful bank, which has written off horrific amounts of value in the last few months...and you know what...investors are literally queuing up to buy the debt, because it will give them a potentially-massively-profitable business for a snap.

Written off Horrific Amounts of Value
Money created and destroyed by the flick of a pen??

Indeed...the entire sub-prime fiasco has been estimated at costing the international banks one trillion dollars in write-offs....and the upshot has been investors looking to buy in cheaply.

So really...while its easy to ask the question of "what if enough people lost confidence", you should first ask what would cause this loss of confidence. I would suggest that the collapse of the banking system would be the least of our worries in any credible scenario which would lead to the loss of confidence in the banks.


No. I don't care.

I'm making it clear that those who take the line that you're taking are generally trying to raise some scare-mongering argument without actually knowing the details behind it...that they don't know what it would take to bring about the situation that they are trying to argue makes the system suspect.

as far as I can see, all that would be required to create the situation where banks and the money system failed would be a concerted effort at scaremongering,

just sow the seeds of doubt in the general population and watch the chaos unfold.

Now I'm not suggestin that we do this, but it would be that simple

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Same as how theres a clear WHY that people voted no th Lisbon

There's a fairly clearly defined, small set of reasons as to why most people voted no to Lisbon, yes.

In the same vein, I would point out that the likes of the Swiss national papers were running articles suggesting a significant possibility that Ireland would vote no before the referendum.

It may have come as a big surprise to those who wanted a no, but insisted that it would never happen (weren't you one of those?), but to the rest of the world who were watching, there were a set of key issues and a trend beforehand that suggested a no was a likely result.

Written off Horrific Amounts of Value
Money created and destroyed by the flick of a pen??

Are you asking questions because you don't know the answers, or are you trying to make a point without actually having to go into detail?

as far as I can see, all that would be required to create the situation where banks and the money system failed would be a concerted effort at scaremongering,

And you see this how, exactly? Have you any evidence? Prior examples? Facts and figures? Anything other than a conclusion?

just sow the seeds of doubt in the general population and watch the chaos unfold.

Again...you reached this conclusion how?

Now I'm not suggestin that we do this, but it would be that simple

Suggesting that it would be that simple is sowing the seeds of doubt.

That there have been those sowing these self-same seeds since the introduction of modern banking should be proof positive that its not that simple.

amacachi

One small observation of doom from the video, US debt has grown 5.5 times since 1980, but from a little bit of research on wikipedia shows that the dollar has depreciated by 2.5 times from 1980 until the end of last year, and quite a bit more since I'm sure. That guy should check his definition of "real".

On the topic of foreign reserves, of course people are moving away from the dollar, wonder if it has anything to do with a slowdown/recession in the US economy? No of course not, I know if I had a chance to invest in a car with no insurance that I thought had a high likelihood of breaking down, I would. Of course the Euro is probably the first currency with a chance of displacing the dollar as the "world"'s currency, since it is in many countries and is a nice way to hedge your bets.

free-man

Antithetic wrote: »

Hurrah! \o/

The builders build for at a cost of x and charge you 1.33x (or whatever their margin is). Banks lend you 1.33x and charge you 1.6x (or whatever their margin is). This is normal.

Let's consider the insurance market. If everyone in Ireland was to crash their car tomorrow, the insurance companies would go bankrupt. What are the odds of this happening? Essentially zero. If 10% of the population crashed, the companies would probably still go bankrupt. The odds of this happening are still essentially zero, too, though. There's a very small "cost" to society that if everyone crashes, we're all ****ed. I'll accept that outright.

But what are the advantages? Well if you make the fairly reasonable assumption that no more than 10% of people are going to crash in any one day, insurance firms only need to hold reserves for 10% of the value of all the cars in Ireland. This means they can charge lower premiums and this means lower prices for consumers. They make a profit and deserve it for two reasons. The first thing they're doing is managing risk, and taking on the risk that 10% of cars will crash and they'll make no money. The second is that they're providing peace of mind for people which is also important.

Consider the similar scenario with banks. It's highly unlikely that everyone will run and remove their savings tomorrow. If they do, we're all ****ed. But if you allow banks leeway in how much they'll lend, the interest rate falls. From an ethical point of view, this is good as it's the opposite of usury. In that sense, calling for a reserve ratio of 1:1 is promoting a form of usury in that it will definitely lead to significantly higher interest rates as there's less credit available. Allowing fractional reserves also stimulates the economy, so people aren't unemployed. A bit like insurance companies, banks make a profit for managing risk and providing loans to students/mortgages to newly-wedded couples etc etc etc.

You have to measure the costs and benefits of these systems and it's helpful to keep the insurance analogy in mind in this regard. I don't think any reasonable person thinks the optimal reserve fraction is 1:1. The correct level is essentially a matter for the mathematicians to work out.

Thankfully, the greedy banks actually work in the consumer's interest here. If you default on a loan, banks lose money. Look at the hit to banks' share prices over the last year for proof. So it's not in their interest to loan to unworthy customers. Similarly they can't lend money if they run out of cash, so it's not in their interests to have too few reserves. Does this reliance of the mutual interest work? Well ask yourself how many people do you know have lost money by putting it into their current accounts?

Now of course sometimes the system fails. In fact don't be surprised if one Irish bank becomes illiquid over the next six months. (Don't worry, if that happens there will be intervention to ensure nobody loses out except the bank itself.) But by and large it works extremely well and the benefits of lower interest rates are incalculable. If you're taking a dogmatic approach that lending money you don't have is immoral, well then you're taking a dogmatic approach and that allows me to take an opposing view that enforcing higher interest rates is immoral.

The final point of "backed up by something" is entirely misled. You're not seeing the broad picture. The government pay me to suggest economic policy. What determines how much I get paid? How much is that "worth"? Why is it worth more than the admin downstairs? It's interesting because if a very left-wing government got into power, I'd be let go. My advice would not fit in with their policy and is suddenly useless. It's the same guy providing the same economic analysis, but now I'm on the dole and admin are getting paid more than me. What's changed?

The answer is supply and demand. "Backed up by something" is determined only by supply and demand, which are both subject to change. If we tie it to gold and we find that the Galtee Mountains are actually made of gold, we'll have a huge inflation problem as "money" is now far more available. Sure, we can set the price of gold, but who says demand for it won't change and nobody will buy it at that price? "Backed up by something" is a load of shite because nothing is fixed. Furthermore, if you're tied to gold, you can't move interest rates to steer the economy. This is just stupid. All for what? "To be backed up" by something which isn't backed up. Once the statute exists that says legal tender must be accepted for debts, then I know the €10 in my pocket is valuable. Moreoever, the value of the €10 is set by the Central Bank and not by the chance finding of gold.

Sounds like a far better system to me.

Thanks Antithetic for explaining these concepts to the average layman.

Your examples make perfect sense I must say.

It does now make sense that some type of fractional reserve system should be in place. What would concern me is if there are cases where there are no limit to the amount the banks can lend without being backed by deposits. If this is the case is it facetious to say that banks can generate money 'out of thin air'.

If not then it follows that any new 'injection' of these funds into the economy pushes up inflation.

As inflation rises the real spending power of my current account savings declines year on year. So I guess it is possible to lose money by putting it into a current account - especially if the interest rate offered is lower than the rate of inflation. I'm not sure how inflation could soar in Ireland alone in your example as this is all regulated centrally? In the US their dollar has slumped and it seems many investors & countries are selling off their dollar reserves. Could this happen to the Euro at some point in the future under poor monetary policy / future war?

Also, what wasn't touched on is the claims made about the federal reserve. If it is true that the Fed is a not owned or controlled by the US government (i know it is unclear who exactly controls it) why does the government not reclaim control of its right to print legal tender and begin to reduce their national debt? Does the government need a cash boost every time a war rolls around to finance it? If so is the interest from this cash boost paid to certain banks? If this is true is it a bold claim that the lenders in this scenario have a real and vested interest in war as a profit driver?

Again, please excuse layman terminology. I am aware that economics is a complex topic and also that varying concerns can be explained away by certain economic arguments however the existence of counter arguments and widespread criticism of the fed in particular leads me to believe it is not all cut and dry..

That said I'm beginning to be swayed by Antithetic's posts

Mahatma coat

so yo uwere swayed by
Greed drives inflation, I dont make up the money, simply add my percentage

so long as no one rocks the boat everything is fine.

have a look around you in Ireland at the moment, how many peoples house values are being re assessed.

a debt based system is always going to cycle out of controll and end in a recession.
buy land, invest in gold

free-man

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so yo uwere swayed by
Greed drives inflation, I dont make up the money, simply add my percentage

so long as no one rocks the boat everything is fine.

have a look around you in Ireland at the moment, how many peoples house values are being re assessed.

a debt based system is always going to cycle out of controll and end in a recession.
buy land, invest in gold

Let the man answer first!

And yes I'm well aware that gold is appreciating vastly in todays market and the dollar value is falling against gold.

Time Magazine

Free-man, you're welcome for my attempts to explain in simple terms. I'm glad you're acceptant that economics isn't your thing and that you're willing to listen to both sides of the argument.

On the other hand:

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Greed drives inflation

is indicative of what I'm concluding Mahatma coat is about. He's driven not in the pursuit of truth, but in the pursuit of a conspiracy. Any will do. I've accepted that if all of Europe suddenly stops valuing money, money is useless. But I've said, equally, that the people of Europe could suddenly stop valuing gold. Both cases are extremely unlikely, not least because both now have a socio-historical mark on the mind regarding value. I also accept it's probably less likely that people will stop valuing gold; but I argue that the cost of not having power of interest rates is not worth this marginal risk. Mahatma coat has refused to provide any credible theory as to why people would stop valuing anything, why monetary policy isn't all that valuable, or his newest pet, something vague about greed driving inflation. I hate to quote Ayn Rand, but if you think money is the root of all evil, what do you think the root of all money is?

His posts also show a distinct lack of fundamental knowledge of economics. In the long-term, economies grow. This is accepted by just about everyone. (How many families in the 1908 had broadband and iPods?) However there are always dips in the economy and this is the main concern of economic policy, hell we've heard nothing else in the news for the past fortnight.

I'll spare you the great economic detail as plenty of e-ink has been spilled on it already. But inflation is not as bad a thing as Mahatma coat might suggest. The consequences of ensuring low inflation can be devastating to employment.

You're not advocating Thatcherite implementation of inflation-targeting are you, Mahatma?

The problem, of course, is that such conspiracy-driven types will then complain that the resulting unemployment is tragic and a result of neo-conservative dogma on inflation.

You just can't win.

Life is about trade-offs. You can't have everything all of the time. There's a trade off between low interest rates and a bit of risk in your currency. There's a trade off between inflation and unemployment. I think Ireland/Europe has a pretty good balance at the moment.

How about instead of wringing your hands from the roof-tops you make some policy suggestions, Mahatma? Anyone can criticise. It takes brains and balls to do something.

Mahatma coat

I didnt say what would happen if ALL of europe stopped valuing their currency, I asked initialy

What percentage of the population would have to loose faith in the currency of Default on their loans before the system collapsed?

you and others are are twisting my words to suit your own purposes, OBVIOUSLY if everyone lost faith in the system it wold fail, I want to know what sort of tolerance levels are inherrent in the system to deal with this, 1% 5% 50% ??

gold still has other uses even if people stop using it as currency, the same cannot be said for the cash in todays society.

the family in 1908 may not have had Ipods or broadband, but they did have a more direct link to their food sources.

100 years of growth eh, with how many Recessions/Corrections

name one other economy which has kept growing throughout the ages from strength to strength and is still a force to be reconed with today?

Économiste Monétaire

Mahatma coat wrote: »

100 years of growth eh, with how many Recessions/Corrections

The benefits outweigh the cost. The proof: Growth & better living standards that 100 years ago.

name one other economy which has kept growing throughout the ages from strength to strength and is still a force to be reconed with today?

Hmm.. Japan, Britain, Russia, France, etc. It depends what you mean by 'force to be reconned with' and the time span defined by 'ages'. There is no one, presiding, god economy. The closest to a god economy was the U.S.A. after WWII.

dont expect an answer from anyone in the Economics forums, they will just say yer silly and confused without actualy clarifying anything

I'm sure people would answer any question they can. However, if you act like a headcase spouting conspiracy theories that are silly, then people will label you as silly.

Mahatma coat

So Ipods are better than food then?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Ipods are better than food then?

You're being willfully obtuse now Mahatma coat.

The family in 1908 might have had a direct link to their food, they also suffered from a lack of basic medical facilities, a lower standard of living and a shorter life expectancy, than the family in 2008. Not to mention probably working a 70 hour week, with days off on a sunday.

Antithetic wrote:

is indicative of what I'm concluding Mahatma coat is about. He's driven not in the pursuit of truth, but in the pursuit of a conspiracy. Any will do

Bingo. Your posts have been informative, interesting, and well laid out. Freeman it's nice to see someone coming with a genuine open mind, unlike Mahatma here.

Économiste Monétaire

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Ipods are better than food then?

Where did I say that? I wouldn't say something like that because it's an idiotic statement. Neither is 'better' than the other, in total terms, each have specific and separate uses. If I hold a curry chip to me ear or try to plug ear phones into a curry chip then it won't work as well as an Ipod would. The same point can be made by trying to eat an Ipod. It is also a useless question since we don't have to substitute one for the other, we have access to both.

People in 2008 are better off than those 100 years ago. Trying to argue against that isn't going to work.

Diogenes wrote:

Antithetic wrote:

is indicative of what I'm concluding Mahatma coat is about. He's driven not in the pursuit of truth, but in the pursuit of a conspiracy. Any will do

Bingo. Your posts have been informative, interesting, and well laid out. Freeman it's nice to see someone coming with a genuine open mind, unlike Mahatma here.

+1

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the family in 1908 may not have had Ipods or broadband, but they did have a more direct link to their food sources

That worked a treat in the 1840's.

Diogenes

Antithetic wrote: »

That worked a treat in the 1840's.

Now that is a pwnage.

Mahatma Coat is a classic example of what I see among so many CTers, he is a Luddite.

Don't understand how modern economics work? Try and educate yourself about economics? Nah. Just suggest we revert to an antiquated system that is easier to understand.

Don't understand the physics of the collapse of the WTC towers? Try and educate yourself and read the NIST report? Nah. Make up theories about Mini nukes.

Don't grasp the scale of the Nazi's final solution? Try and figure out the scale and scope of the holocaust? Nah. Suggest "The Jews" exaggerate the figure.

It's a near religious movement which holds certain beliefs as infallible ( there is a a government conspiracy theory that controls the world, 9/11 was an inside job) And try to refuse to counter evidence that contradicts you. You'd be more likely to find a skeptic waiting in line at Lourdes, then a skeptic a 911 truth convention.

As i've said, these are people who don't want to understand, they want things to be easy and straight forward, they don't want to admit that "hard" and "complicated" aren't words to run from, instead these are challenges to some people like to meet.

Mahatma coat

Antithetic wrote: »

That worked a treat in the 1840's.

interestin point alright, what happens next time the country faces dire food shortages, if a mostly agricultural society couldn't survive last time what happens to the bulk of the population livin just above the poverty line in the towns and cities, they might think they have advanced to the zenith of society, but what if the rug is pulled out from under them, then what, massive inflation, lootin and riotin, starvation?

or will we all just go to the Supermarket because thats where food comes from?

Civilisations have risen and fallen throughout history, almost all have followed the boom and bust growth cycle, none have lasted more than a few centuries,

course this time its different, right?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

interestin point alright, what happens next time the country faces dire food shortages, if a mostly agricultural society couldn't survive last time what happens to the bulk of the population livin just above the poverty line in the towns and cities, they might think they have advanced to the zenith of society, but what if the rug is pulled out from under them, then what, massive inflation, lootin and riotin, starvation?

or will we all just go to the Supermarket because thats where food comes from?

The potato famine happened because we were restricted to one crop due to technological and population grounds.

Civilisations have risen and fallen throughout history, almost all have followed the boom and bust growth cycle, none have lasted more than a few centuries,

course this time its different, right?

Did the incas have access to the suez and panama canal? Did the eygptians have access to chemical herbicides, how about global food bodies dedicated to helping those in desperate need of starvation.

Honestly Mahatma you are so tenuously away from your original point it isn't even funny.

Yes people could produce their own food, and live on our farms, but we wouldn't be able to sustain the infrastructure and industry to maintain the standard of living that we (in the developed world) enjoy if we did.

What this has to do with the gold standard is anyone's guess. Sorry Matahma the world got more complicated. As I mentioned a few pages ago, and got sneered at by you, the vast majority of people don't make something that fits into a primary need. Very few of us are involved in providing food, or shelter for the other members of our community.

Just because you don't grasp this, isn't a compelling argument to going back to the gold standard.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

The potato famine happened because we were restricted to one crop due to technological and population grounds.

so what now when most people have NO Crop? and as you pointed out produce nothing physical/tangible as a daily output. how do these people feed themselves if the arse falls out of the money system?

Did the incas have access to the suez and panama canal?

they did build rather impressive cities and connect it all together with roads and a courier service

Did the eygptians have access to chemical herbicides,

no but they did have the Nile delta to feed their populations and developed agricultural practices still in use in the region today

how about global food bodies dedicated to helping those in desperate need of starvation.

the Who? no money == no charitable organisations

Honestly Mahatma you are so tenuously away from your original point it isn't even funny.

really how, I'm tryin to clarify my stance on this for you, you seem to have no interest in attempting to understand my POV, I'm just archaic, what is it you called me 'a Luddite' because my value system involves actualy producing something tangible before I'd call it wealth.

Yes people could produce their own food, and live on our farms, but we wouldn't be able to sustain the infrastructure and industry to maintain the standard of living that we (in the developed world) enjoy if we did.

you've lost me here somewhat, what I'm saying is that people would have a greater standard of living if we were capable of feeding ourselves by our own hand, rather than having to work like slaves to generate the money, instead if we were capable of providing our own basic staples then we could work to afford luxuries instead.

What this has to do with the gold standard is anyone's guess. Sorry Matahma the world got more complicated. As I mentioned a few pages ago, and got sneered at by you, the vast majority of people don't make something that fits into a primary need. Very few of us are involved in providing food, or shelter for the other members of our community.

are you deliberatley misrepresenting what I say so as to make yerself feel better or something, or can you just not see things from my point of view?

Just because you don't grasp this, isn't a compelling argument to going back to the gold standard.

I 'grasp' your concepts, I dont like them and they worry me, can you 'grasp' my POV?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

interestin point alright, what happens next time the country faces dire food shortages, if a mostly agricultural society couldn't survive last time what happens to the bulk of the population livin just above the poverty line in the towns and cities, they might think they have advanced to the zenith of society, but what if the rug is pulled out from under them, then what, massive inflation, lootin and riotin, starvation?

In today's world, there still are counties facing dire food shortages. Mostly, they're countries suffering from a combination of factors, including the poverty which prevents them (as a nation) from buying food.

Today, the world has the capacity and capability to transport goods like never before. If there's a food shortage, you import food. If there's a water shortage, you import water. All you need is the money to afford to do so. In previous times, this wasn't the case - we simply didn't have the transport infrastructure to import food for entire regions/nations.

or will we all just go to the Supermarket because thats where food comes from?

I find it notable that you look on a national food shortage as a problem to be individually solved. We would most probably go to the supermarket, because that is most probably where our imported food would end up. A lot of the food there is already imported and so wouldn't be effected by a local food shortage.

Civilisations have risen and fallen throughout history, almost all have followed the boom and bust growth cycle, none have lasted more than a few centuries,

course this time its different, right?

You appear to be the one advocating that we return to systems which are more like those used in the previous civilisations...and now you wish to argue that we should do so because, well, civilisations have fallen and can fall again.

You are, in effect, saying we should abandon the new and return to the old, based on the premise that civilisations built on the old have fallen and thus might fall again.

How does that make sense, exactly? What does returning to the methodologies we know led to failure gain us?

It would seem that your argument is that the new methodologies might - at worst - be no better. Fine. Lets say they're no better. Why should we change?

tolosenc

Ooh, ooh, ooh! I know!

Let's all, from now on, be hunter-gatherers! Do away with this whole economics lark altogether - then we wouldn't have to try to pretend that we don't grasp concepts that are thoroughly explained and not that complicated, just to get a rise out of people.

Actually, I don't reckon there were many conspiracy theorist hunter-gatherers. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad move.

Mahatma coat

bonkey wrote: »

In today's world, there still are counties facing dire food shortages. Mostly, they're countries suffering from a combination of factors, including the poverty which prevents them (as a nation) from buying food.

so they are too poor to buy food, yet in yer next paragraph you suggest

Today, the world has the capacity and capability to transport goods like never before. If there's a food shortage, you import food. If there's a water shortage, you import water. All you need is the money to afford to do so. In previous times, this wasn't the case - we simply didn't have the transport infrastructure to import food for entire regions/nations.

so how do these poor countries import this food, by selling themselves into debt with the IMF, so that they can give huge chunks of money to some other country.

wouldnt it make more sense to have a population capable of individualy sustaining itself, then any of the money thats floatin around can be used for something else, some kind of infrastructure projects or something.

I find it notable that you look on a national food shortage as a problem to be individually solved. We would most probably go to the supermarket, because that is most probably where our imported food would end up. A lot of the food there is already imported and so wouldn't be effected by a local food shortage.

so you dont think food shortages/famine/starvation are individual problems that can be solved one person at a time,

that whole 'give a man a fish........' cliche

how would you suggest the solving of a national food shortage?

You appear to be the one advocating that we return to systems which are more like those used in the previous civilisations...and now you wish to argue that we should do so because, well, civilisations have fallen and can fall again.

civilisations rise and fall, people continue.

You are, in effect, saying we should abandon the new and return to the old, based on the premise that civilisations built on the old have fallen and thus might fall again.

no I'm sayin that we shouldnt completley discard the old values just cos the new system seems easier, there are huge pitfalls to having a mainly urbanised population seperated by degrees from its food source.

How does that make sense, exactly? What does returning to the methodologies we know led to failure gain us?

It would seem that your argument is that the new methodologies might - at worst - be no better. Fine. Lets say they're no better. Why should we change?

IMO we would be better off if we could all as individuals grow our own food, a nice extra to that would be if we also owned our own land and houses, then we would be gettin somewhere towards a free and equal society

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so what now when most people have NO Crop? and as you pointed out produce nothing physical/tangible as a daily output. how do these people feed themselves if the arse falls out of the money system?

If, if, if. As pointed out the system falls apart if people loose faith in it, the more people dependent on it, the less likely it is to fall apart.

wouldnt it make more sense to have a population capable of individualy sustaining itself, then any of the money thats floatin around can be used for something else, some kind of infrastructure projects or something.

Some kind of infrastructure project or something. Gosh I'm glad you don't have control over the economy.

IMO we would be better off if we could all as individuals grow our own food, a nice extra to that would be if we also owned our own land and houses, then we would be gettin somewhere towards a free and equal society

And what happens if you have a tooth ache? Your dentist is too busy growing crops. Or maybe your doctor is given a stipend but what the team of pharmacists he needs to make the drugs? And the government body necessary to regulate this industry? Who's mining the gravel to build the roads necessary to bring the the drugs to you. Who's maintaining the roads?

The more you explain your alternative system, the more you expose how little you've thought it out.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

If, if, if. As pointed out the system falls apart if people loose faith in it, the more people dependent on it, the less likely it is to fall apart.

as I see it it means more people will feel the pnch when the system collapses

Some kind of infrastructure project or something. Gosh I'm glad you don't have control over the economy.

yeah, generl infrastructure projects that benefit the population,wanna get into regional specifics?

And what happens if you have a tooth ache? Your dentist is too busy growing crops. Or maybe your doctor is given a stipend but what the team of pharmacists he needs to make the drugs? And the government body necessary to regulate this industry? Who's mining the gravel to build the roads necessary to bring the the drugs to you. Who's maintaining the roads?

from your response I can deduce thqt you know Fvck All about farmin and the art involved

The more you explain your alternative system, the more you expose how little you've thought it out.

Ditto


*highlighted bit* why are Government bodies Necessary

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as I see it it means more people will feel the pnch when the system collapses

When the entire economy collapses, do you have a date in mind?

yeah, generl infrastructure projects that benefit the population,wanna get into regional specifics?

No I'm fascinated by someone who thinks supporting infrastructure should be built using whatever leftover cash that is "floatin around" displaying a level of foresight and planning that, is, oh wait hang on, are you by any chance Brian Cowen?

from your response I can deduce thqt you know Fvck All about farmin and the art involved

Actually long line of small Donegal farmers going back six generations, but thats neither here nor there. Running a farm is not a single man or a single family occupation, you need access to vets to tend to your life stock, mechanics to ensure farm machinery is operational, chemists for pesticides, I could go on and on about how absurd your one man one farm idea is.


But lets actually look at what I said.

me wrote:

And what happens if you have a tooth ache? Your dentist is too busy growing crops. Or maybe your doctor is given a stipend but what the team of pharmacists he needs to make the drugs? And the government body necessary to regulate this industry? Who's mining the gravel to build the roads necessary to bring the the drugs to you. Who's maintaining the roads?

I think it's quite clear that I'm referring a government body that regulates the pharmaceutical industry.

But once more for the willifully obtuse among us;

And what happens if you have a tooth ache? Your dentist is too busy growing crops. Or maybe your doctor is given a stipend but what the team of pharmacists he needs to make the drugs? And the government body necessary to regulate the pharmaceutical industry? Who's mining the gravel to build the roads necessary to bring the the drugs to you. Who's maintaining the roads?

Now Mahatma why don't you answer this argument instead of wittering on about the "art of farming".

Ditto


*highlighted bit* why are Government bodies Necessary

Honestly I think you're trolling at this stage.

Économiste Monétaire

At this stage just give the guy a link to purchasing a principles of economics book.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

When the entire economy collapses, do you have a date in mind?

so this whole recession thing then, Just something made up by the CT'ers?

No I'm fascinated by someone who thinks supporting infrastructure should be built using whatever leftover cash that is "floatin around" displaying a level of foresight and planning that, is, oh wait hang on, are you by any chance Brian Cowen?

so what would you do, oh yeah you'd sell us all into debt to the IMF.

Actually long line of small Donegal farmers going back six generations, but thats neither here nor there. Running a farm is not a single man or a single family occupation, you need access to vets to tend to your life stock, mechanics to ensure farm machinery is operational, chemists for pesticides, I could go on and on about how absurd your one man one farm idea is.

only in the last few generations have people decided they 'need' vets or mechanics, where I come from ( A FARM) we dealt with our own Lambs and Calves, and fixed our own machinery, as for chemists, well I think we'd be somewhat better off without their 'assistance' but thats a topic for another thread

But lets actually look at what I said.



I think it's quite clear that I'm referring a government body that regulates the pharmaceutical industry.

But once more for the willifully obtuse among us;



Now Mahatma why don't you answer this argument instead of wittering on about the "art of farming".




Honestly I think you're trolling at this stage.

So huge government bodies to regulate every part of life then, thats your suggestion, who pays for it all? with what?