Human greed

HansHolzel · 01-11-2013 12:24pm

Some jobs have to be permanent (e.g. for the administrative and security needs of society) but a person who does one or two contracts on the same job can hardly demand the same protection as somebody who is put through that mill, say, half a dozen times.

Systemic Risk · 01-11-2013 12:48pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Some jobs have to be permanent (e.g. for the administrative and security needs of society) but a person who does one or two contracts on the same job can hardly demand the same protection as somebody who is put through that mill, say, half a dozen times.

I understand that some jobs by their very nature are largely contract based. Unfortunately I am in on a career path where, unless I am very lucky, I will be on 1-3 year contracts for a number of years. I wasn't fully aware of this going in but it is the norm.

I do believe that the majority of jobs should offer full time contracts after a year or two of an employee proving their worth. This is still fairly common but what worries me is that the trend seems to be going more and more towards these temporary contracts since the economic downturn. People are willing to accept less employment because there are less jobs. Its simple supply and demand. Demand is high, supply low so the conditions of employment reduce. Maybe this will level out or improve when we get the unemployment rate back down to more normal levels.

Tony EH · 01-11-2013 1:00pm

Systemic Risk wrote: »

We have been convinced that we need loads of stuff, clothes, gadgets, new cars etc. and we want them relatively cheaply (a generalisation I know).

People only engage in that sort of excess in times of good personal economic health. When times get worse, you'll find that people will generally hold off on the more frivolous items you've listed.

In the old days, people made things last. They darned socks, let trousers out and patched coats. People bought furniture and it lasted them for decades. But, also, many of the essential items our grandparents bought are made more cheaply today, but are actually more expensive to the consumer. Furniture is a fine example.

You're correct that western civilisations are "stuff" orientated and we are also more wasteful than our counterparts from yesteryear. However, that doesn't let the extreme capitalist, profit at all cost, system off the hook.

The greed of the capitalist system, as practiced in today's terms, doesn't float all boats. It sinks a large number and puts holes in the vast majority. The capitalist system may be built on sound theory, the theory of reward for hard work, but the practice has shown that to be a lie. The majority of hard work, within the framework of current trends, goes to enrich the few and not the many, or even the actual worker. When one takes up a job, the vast majority of your labour goes to enriching your employer, not you.

Also, entities which should have failed, are still kept afloat and on the backs of other less fortunate. The banks are the prime example. "Too big to fail" is not a basic tenet of capitalist thinking, but is certainly indicative of the mindset of a lot of people who sing its praises, without really listening to the words of the song.

It's the "I'm all right Jack" mentality, writ large.

purplepanda · 01-11-2013 1:17pm

The 300 richest individuals in the world have the same wealth as the poorest 3 billion of the total world population. http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=wealth+of+300+richest+people&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=I5pzUueROtCBhAeJ7IHABQ

If the financial wealth of the world was distributed equally amongst all the world's people, perhaps Western Europeans would be slightly poorer overall but I don't believe it would be a substantial difference.

The problem with modern globalist uber-capitalism is that it is destroying smaller & more local based businesses worldwide, the western middle classes are steadily losing income & are now under threat, just as working classes have been for a longer period.

Nowadays greedy globalist corporations have more power over world events than national governments & peoples. Politicians are failing to protect national sovereignty & the welfare of their electorates.

Tony EH · 01-11-2013 1:20pm

Systemic Risk wrote: »

I understand that some jobs by their very nature are largely contract based. Unfortunately I am in on a career path where, unless I am very lucky, I will be on 1-3 year contracts for a number of years. I wasn't fully aware of this going in but it is the norm.

I do believe that the majority of jobs should offer full time contracts after a year or two of an employee proving their worth. This is still fairly common but what worries me is that the trend seems to be going more and more towards these temporary contracts since the economic downturn. People are willing to accept less employment because there are less jobs. Its simple supply and demand. Demand is high, supply low so the conditions of employment reduce. Maybe this will level out or improve when we get the unemployment rate back down to more normal levels.

It'll only improve when the custodians of a given country once again realise that part of their reason for existence should be creating work for a nation's citizens. As long as governments continue to hold their hands up and try to become less and less accountable for this absolute necessity, the employment situation will continue to become more and more dire.

Some work will be contract based, by its very nature, but the vast majority of companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse the contract system in the way that we've seen happen in the last ten years or so.

Nearly everyone I know (who actually has a job) is working in companies under temporary contracts, myself included. I currently work in a company where people have been on contract for years, without any sign of permanency coming their way, despite having already "proven their worth". This is not a way forward. It's a reversal of what people fought for years ago.

We are now seeing the appalling trend of 0 hour contracts in the UK and I wouldn't be surprised to see our glorious leaders take it up over here soon. To me, such a concept is repulsive and allows employers to treat people as little more than casual slaves, subject to the exploitative whims of the employing body, where work can be used as a reward and taken away as a punishment.

When one thinks about that, it's hard not to be sickened by it.

Unfortunately, I see a future where temporary contracts will become the norm for employees, unless laws are enacted to restrict this practice. However, the fact is that governments and law makers are in bed with big business and not their citizenry, so it's difficult to see any way out of the current downward trend.

Iwasfrozen · 01-11-2013 1:25pm

Tony EH, what do you want the government to do? If they try to increase tax or regulations the MNC's will just leave, taking their wealth and jobs with them.

Many people look to their government fr guidance but you must understand no one owes you a standard of living.

Zed Bank · 01-11-2013 1:27pm

You know the solution: Communism!

Tony EH · 01-11-2013 1:56pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Tony EH, what do you want the government to do? If they try to increase tax or regulations the MNC's will just leave, taking their wealth and jobs with them.

Many people look to their government fr guidance but you must understand no one owes you a standard of living.

You know, that's not actually correct.

We pay through our taxes for a standard of living. The kind of attitude you've just expressd lets the people with their hands on the tiller off the hook, when they should be getting scrutinised for their failings.

If working people could enjoy the entire fruits of their labour, without ruling bodies taking their cut, then you might have a point. But it isn't that way.

People are forced to pay huge sums of money throughout their working life and often times it's for no return.

It's part of a government's responsibilties to generate work for the citizens of a nation. In fact, it should be their No 1 responsibility.

Good work and steady employment benefits society, unemployment and fear for the future doesn't.

In any case Multi Nationals are leaving anyway, even without having to pay their share of taxes and without much regulation. So to me that point is rather moot.

BraziliaNZ · 01-11-2013 2:01pm

donegal__road wrote: »

I think the Danes and the Norwegians have it nailed.. the Canadians aren't too far behind either.

.

The Canadians who rape the sh*t out of Northern Alberta for oil

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tar-sands-2-1000.jpg

Iwasfrozen · 01-11-2013 2:14pm

Tony EH wrote: »

You know, that's not actually correct.

We pay through our taxes for a standard of living. The kind of attitude you've just expressd lets the people with their hands on the tiller off the hook, when they should be getting scrutinised for their failings.

If working people could enjoy the entire fruits of their labour, without ruling bodies taking their cut, then you might have a point. But it isn't that way.

People are forced to pay huge sums of money throughout their working life and often times it's for no return.

It's part of a government's responsibilties to generate work for the citizens of a nation. In fact, it should be their No 1 responsibility.

Good work and steady employment benefits society, unemployment and fear for the future doesn't.

In any case Multi Nationals are leaving anyway, even without having to pay their share of taxes and without much regulation. So to me that point is rather moot.

That's not true at all. You don't pay taxes to the state to provide you with a standard of living. If that was true rich people who already have the highest standard of living wouldn't need to pay taxes for the government to provide them one. In truth you pay taxes because you have to, to avoid jail. There's no other reason.

You might say education and welfare are examples of services the state provides in exchange for tax revenue but people could just as easily afford heath insurance or private education for their kids if the government wasn't taking a huge chunk out of every salary they receive.

The MNC's are leaving? What all of them? do you have any proof? Pfizer announced the were upgrading their plant here lately. It would be odd if they upped and left now.

Tony EH · 01-11-2013 2:48pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In truth you pay taxes because you have to, to avoid jail. There's no other reason.

That's the reality. The principle is a different thing altogether. Your taxes are supposed to provide the citizens of the state with a standard of living. The idea behind taxation is that the monies generated go back into the society.

The practice, however, remains a different thing. Evidenced clearly by the recent house tax fiasco.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The MNC's are leaving? What all of them? do you have any proof? Pfizer announced the were upgrading their plant here lately. It would be odd if they upped and left now.

Multi Nationals are transitory entities at best. Foreign company investment will always go where the cheapest source of labour is. Just because they have a good time of it now, doesn't mean the won't up and leave, or just outsource labour to another country, while retaining an office in a given country.

Ponying up to them is selling out your nation's citizens and it's putting the best interests of a company before the people.

That's not a good solution, it's short term thinking at best and a disaster when it goes tits up.

Systemic Risk · 01-11-2013 3:04pm

Tony EH wrote: »

You're correct that western civilisations are "stuff" orientated and we are also more wasteful than our counterparts from yesteryear. However, that doesn't let the extreme capitalist, profit at all cost, system off the hook.

I have to say I agree with everything you are saying. I definitely wouldn't let big business off the hook at all. I just wanted to say there has to be some personal responsibility in the choices we make. A few changing their spending patterns however wont make a much of a difference.

Tony EH wrote: »

It'll only improve when the custodians of a given country once again realise that part of their reason for existence should be creating work for a nation's citizens. As long as governments continue to hold their hands up and try to become less and less accountable for this absolute necessity, the employment situation will continue to become more and more dire.

Some work will be contract based, by its very nature, but the vast majority of companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse the contract system in the way that we've seen happen in the last ten years or so.

Nearly everyone I know (who actually has a job) is working in companies under temporary contracts, myself included. I currently work in a company where people have been on contract for years, without any sign of permanency coming their way, despite having already "proven their worth". This is not a way forward. It's a reversal of what people fought for years ago.

We are now seeing the appalling trend of 0 hour contracts in the UK and I wouldn't be surprised to see our glorious leaders take it up over here soon. To me, such a concept is repulsive and allows employers to treat people as little more than casual slaves, subject to the exploitative whims of the employing body, where work can be used as a reward and taken away as a punishment.

When one thinks about that, it's hard not to be sickened by it.

Unfortunately, I see a future where temporary contracts will become the norm for employees, unless laws are enacted to restrict this practice. However, the fact is that governments and law makers are in bed with big business and not their citizenry, so it's difficult to see any way out of the current downward trend.

The problem lies in the fact that if Ireland legislates for improved job security, jobs will migrate towards countries such as the UK which will most likely not legislate for it. I detest the thought of these 0 hour contracts and a move towards temporary contracts and I was engaging in wishful thinking by stating that perhaps the downwards trend in job security will stop when the economic situation improves. I dont believe it will either.

awec · 01-11-2013 3:11pm

The people who whinge about jobs moving to China are the same people who'd be whinging if that new phone they wanted to buy was 200 quid more expensive because it was built in Ireland.

The same people who want budgets to attack businesses every time are the same people who whinge when those businesses go elsewhere.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Tony EH · 01-11-2013 3:17pm

Systemic Risk wrote: »

The problem lies in the fact that if Ireland legislates for improved job security, jobs will migrate towards countries such as the UK which will most likely not legislate for it. I detest the thought of these 0 hour contracts and a move towards temporary contracts and I was engaging in wishful thinking by stating that perhaps the downwards trend in job security will stop when the economic situation improves. I dont believe it will either.

That's definitely an issue. But what does a country do? Do they continuously swing the meter to the foreign companies at the expense of their own people? Or should there be better efforts to nourish homegrown companies and job investment?

Apple have paid less tax than the top Irish companies like Glanbia, Ryanair or the Kerry Group. Is that a situation that we want? Just to say that Apple are here?

I don't think so.

It's very difficult to set up business in Ireland and unless you have a shedload of capital behind you, you can forget it. But, Irish businessmen have a lot to answer for as well. It's a sad fact that a lot of Irish business gets set up, they operate for a short period and then the owner sells the comapny, usually to some larger concern involved in the same enterprise.

It's why there will never be an Irish Microsoft, or an Irish Apple.

We have too many get rich quick merchants.

Maximus Alexander · 01-11-2013 3:24pm

Chris___ wrote: »

Oh yeah my Sony Vaio I paid over €800 for August must have used it only 3 or 4 times (bought it after the Dell Latitude I had 7 beeps of death see below) the motherboard went in it just four weeks after I bought it. In a battle with the retailer who sold it to me to get it fixed or refunded Made in China

Meanwhile the Sony Vaio I bought in 2011 has never gave me a bit of bother
Made in Japan (Sony must have moved production to China in 2012/13)

The Dell Precision I have for 4 years which was Made in Ireland is still working perfect like it only came out of the box.

The Dell Latitude I bought in 2012 7 beeps of death Made in China

The Nokia N8 I bought in 2011 still working perfect Made in Finland

The Nokia Lumia 800 2012 battery only last an hour in it and sometimes the touch doesn't work Made in China

Don't get me started about the iPhone I had

The Chinese may be faster cheaper workers than the Irish, Japanese and the Finnish but the quality of most electronics built in China is ****.

I have a HTC Desire HD which I have used constantly for 3 years, powered on 24 hours a day, taken around the world with me, and it still works perfectly. Made in China.

I have an Asus x53 laptop, nearly 3 years old, powered on about 8 hours a day, also traveled around the world with me. Works perfectly. Made in China.

Anecdotal evidence, super useful in a debate. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

donegal__road · 01-11-2013 3:56pm

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

The Canadians who rape the sh*t out of Northern Alberta for oil

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tar-sands-2-1000.jpg

nowhere is perfect. Norway are also fond of their oil. It's what pays for their health system and other services. Do we question where we get our oil from, and the ethical practices of the companies that produce it?

FXoption · 01-11-2013 5:27pm

Some awfully economically deluded people here.

why should it be illegal for two people or entities to make an agreement in the form of a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract then don't sign it. Nobody owes you a job or a standard of living. That is up to you to get for yourself.

old hippy · 01-11-2013 5:30pm

lufties wrote: »

world peace might happen if people weren't profitting financially from war.

Indeed, one of the biggest industries there is. Everybody wins. If you're on the side of that industry...

HansHolzel · 01-11-2013 5:33pm

FXoption wrote: »

Some awfully economically deluded people here.

why should it be illegal for two people or entities to make an agreement in the form of a contract. If you don't like the terms of a contract then don't sign it. Nobody owes you a job or a standard of living. That is up to you to get for yourself.

Who's deluded?

"Our jurists... find that progress in legislation is leaving women with no further ground of complaint... This typically legalist method of argument is exactly the same as that which the radical republican bourgeois uses to put the proletarian in his place. The labour contract is to be freely entered into by both partners. But it is considered to have been freely entered into as soon as the law makes both parties equal on paper. The power conferred on the one party by the difference of class position, the pressure thereby brought to bear on the other party - the real economic position of both - that is not the law's business."

(Engels, F., Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State Penguin 1986:103)

Ray Palmer · 01-11-2013 6:00pm

How dumb or people? Were those empires about and invasion of countries something other than greed.

ScumLord · 01-11-2013 6:06pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I have a HTC Desire HD which I have used constantly for 3 years, powered on 24 hours a day, taken around the world with me, and it still works perfectly. Made in China.

I have an Asus x53 laptop, nearly 3 years old, powered on about 8 hours a day, also traveled around the world with me. Works perfectly. Made in China.

Anecdotal evidence, super useful in a debate. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

At this stage everythings made in China, the good products and the worst.

Global companies, the likes of HTC could simply set up their own factory in China and in that case it's going to be more or less the same as having a factory in Europe, it'll even be full of European employees.

It's really only the knock off merchants you have to watch, their fly by night making TVs one day and fridges the next. They're working off plans and they've no clue what they're doing so when something goes wrong they don't know what to do about it.

I was very disappointed recently to have paid big money for a German product only to see "made in China" written on the box when it arrived. But I have dealings with UK companies that have basically moved their EU standard factory over to Europe. At least companies like that still have the experienced staff to know what their doing.

KyussBishop · 02-11-2013 2:19pm

Systemic Risk wrote: »

Very interesting. So in effect we have a credit driven economy rather than one driven by interests rates. The amount of credit/debt extended by the banks increases during good times, causing higher peaks in the economic cycle, and contracts during busts causing lower troughs in economic activity. In other words when the economy is going well banks lend more money to businesses and individuals, causing an increase in economic activity. When the economy goes into a downturn the banks restrict lending and call in loans, thereby sucking money out of the economy and causing the recession to deepen.

I can see how in theory public banks could be a good thing as they could be run in a conservative manner, keeping the level of credit relatively steady and perhaps implementing Keynesian strategies and slightly decreasing credit in a boom cycle and increasing credit in a recession. This however is dependent on the people in charge knowing what they are at. Also it could be argued that a central bank could fulfil this role through reserve requirements, liquidity facilities and targeting a money supply. However, this would not stop private financial institutions creating and speculating in complex derivatives. Mortgage backed securities were seen as great because they created increased the liquidity in the system i.e. banks could sell on their pooled mortgages and lend out more money.

When you say money creation not being debt-based, how do you mean? IS this if there were no private banks then public banks would keep the level of credit steady and then money supply can be controlled more accurately by the central bank?

Well, none of that is really what I had in mind there - it would be about removing the ability to create money from private banks (or them having to do it under increased regulation/supervision), and having a public bank capable of (at least) investing in public works stimulus in the bad times, without that having to lead to punitive interest rates on national debt.

The problem with describing this, is that assumptions are too easily made about the setup of this system, which causes a lot of opposition to be based on faulty-assumptions/straw-men.

For countries with control over their own currency (which we do not), the public bank funding for public works, wouldn't even need to be based on debt (where the money is lent out and repaid), because government would just be paying money back to itself, thus allowing funding of public works/projects using 'non-debt-based' money (where the money is spent out on public works and not repaid - it is removed from circulation in the wider economy, using taxes instead).

Wibbs · 02-11-2013 3:33pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In truth you pay taxes because you have to, to avoid jail. There's no other reason.

No that's part of the reason IwF. Other reasons should include communal services for wider society.

You might say education and welfare are examples of services the state provides in exchange for tax revenue but people could just as easily afford heath insurance or private education for their kids if the government wasn't taking a huge chunk out of every salary they receive.

Conveniently and subjectively forgetting those who are not salaried of course. What about the disabled, the young, the old, the non purely cash contributors to society? What happens with them? Charity? Do they factor in your brave new world? And does any society want to copy the US health insurance model where the only competition they face is each other and profits are so high across the board, no way is any one of them going to drop prices.

awec wrote: »

The people who whinge about jobs moving to China are the same people who'd be whinging if that new phone they wanted to buy was 200 quid more expensive because it was built in Ireland.

True, though in the case of some like the iPhone the reason for their high cost is a lot less to do with manufacturing costs, but Apple's markup. Basically the same phones from other makers are notably less expensive.

Tony EH wrote: »

In the old days, people made things last.

Never mind the old days T

I've nearly always bought items with an eye to longevity, the only real exception being IT stuff as things do improve over time. I buy things that can be repaired or are just built better and I'll pay more up front if needs be. I don't generally like the temporary throwaway consumerist stuff(especially high priced fashion tat, if it's cheap then OK), both from a philosophical sense as well as financial. I've a couple of Barbour oilskins going back decades. One has a couple of battle scars that were patched and I reproof them with wax every few years, but otherwise they still do what they said on the tin when I bought them.

People bought furniture and it lasted them for decades. But, also, many of the essential items our grandparents bought are made more cheaply today, but are actually more expensive to the consumer. Furniture is a fine example.

Oh furniture is a real beauty for this alright. EG a few years back I needed a chest of drawers. Now I could have bought some DIY Ikea yoke but figured I get something a little nicer, so was looking for a Georgian era piece. Got one too and at the same price as the really badly made Chinese tat you see in places lie Harvey Normans(if I'd gone for a later Victorian one it would have been cheaper). Anyway one day I wandered into an upmarket purveyor of furniture and was looking at a Georgian repro chest of drawers. Clearly better made than the usual crap, but not near the standard of the originals. Salesman puts the talk on me and explains the features. So I ask the price... Three times the price of an original. Wut da fuq? I politely pointed this out to him and his reply? "ah yes but an original wouldn't have a five year guarantee". Ehhhh

The new one would also be worth about it's weight in firewood the second it left the shop. PLus old stuff is a handy way to avoid the taxman... "oh that old thing? That's been in the family for years"

:)

KyussBishop · 02-11-2013 3:47pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

...

Here actually, following up from my post above, is a good presentation Ellen Brown (a prominent author on the topic of public banks and non-debt-based money) gave to the recently formed Irish Public Banking Forum:
https://webofdebt.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ireland-power-point.pdf

That gives a good overview of debt-based money, non-debt-based money, public banks, and how it all relates to the current economic crisis.

Systemic Risk · 03-11-2013 3:53pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, none of that is really what I had in mind there - it would be about removing the ability to create money from private banks (or them having to do it under increased regulation/supervision), and having a public bank capable of (at least) investing in public works stimulus in the bad times, without that having to lead to punitive interest rates on national debt.

The problem with describing this, is that assumptions are too easily made about the setup of this system, which causes a lot of opposition to be based on faulty-assumptions/straw-men.

For countries with control over their own currency (which we do not), the public bank funding for public works, wouldn't even need to be based on debt (where the money is lent out and repaid), because government would just be paying money back to itself, thus allowing funding of public works/projects using 'non-debt-based' money (where the money is spent out on public works and not repaid - it is removed from circulation in the wider economy, using taxes instead).

Well as long as private banks have some control over the amount of debt they issue, they will have a role in money creation. I agree that their power to affect the money supply should be well regulated, supervised and regularly reviewed. If banks knew they had to meet certain criteria and standards of lending on penalty of losing their licence then I think we would have a more stable banking system and therefore the money supply would be less susceptible to boom bust cycles.

I have a couple of questions, i am genuinely trying to get an idea of the type of institution you are talking about as I am interested. If the money the public bank issues does not have to be paid back, is it therefore fully funded by taxes? If it were taking customer deposits then the money it issues would have to be debt based as money will have to be repaid with interest as customers expect a return to compensate them for inflation and to forgo current spending. If it doesn't take in deposits and is tax funded then is it not more of a public funding institution than a bank, a branch of the government which gives grants for business and infrastructural projects.

What I always thought of as a public banks was one that was publicly owned and ran not with huge profits as an aim but for the public good. A bank which takes in deposits at a reasonable interest rate and loans out for a slightly higher interest rate. Any profit that is made can be used for public works such as infrastructural projects. It is still operates similar to private banks just for the people. Loans are based on merit and can be targeted to stimulate particular industries in order to compliment public economic policy. I don't know enough about this to comment further but it certainly sounds like an interesting option that i will be reading more about when I get a chance.

Potatoeman · 03-11-2013 4:36pm

lufties wrote: »

They way the world is today seems to be a race to the bottom with regard to sqeezing middle and working classes, working hours are longer, salaries are lower and most jobs are on 'contract'. This all to the benefit of big business with increasing profits. It seems in Ireland that if big corporations see a cheaper option ( ie moving to china), they're gone.

This is a worrying trend the world over, fat cats getting super rich and that wealth gap increasing. I wonder though why humans have become so damn greedy, is it a mental illness ?where enough is never enough. Personally I like to try and be comfortable but never at the expense of others. In my job I have dealt with employment agencies and a lot of them are there as a middle man out for a quick buck, made off the back of the employee. I wonder how they can sleep at night making a living that way.

This is very worrying for humanity IMO, I dont have an alternative to capitalism but a system that benefits such a small few to the detriment of others can't be the way forward.

Comfortable is very subjective. You are living very well compared to someone in the third world. People with more money than you will always seem to have enough by your standards.

If you want to change this you would need to reward what you see a good behaviour. Capitalism is about rewarding productivity but it rewards companies and not the individual worker. That said you accept a job for a salary in a company, it's not a co-op. They are their to generate money for their investors.

KyussBishop · 03-11-2013 4:50pm

Systemic Risk wrote: »

Well as long as private banks have some control over the amount of debt they issue, they will have a role in money creation. I agree that their power to affect the money supply should be well regulated, supervised and regularly reviewed. If banks knew they had to meet certain criteria and standards of lending on penalty of losing their licence then I think we would have a more stable banking system and therefore the money supply would be less susceptible to boom bust cycles.

I have a couple of questions, i am genuinely trying to get an idea of the type of institution you are talking about as I am interested. If the money the public bank issues does not have to be paid back, is it therefore fully funded by taxes? If it were taking customer deposits then the money it issues would have to be debt based as money will have to be repaid with interest as customers expect a return to compensate them for inflation and to forgo current spending. If it doesn't take in deposits and is tax funded then is it not more of a public funding institution than a bank, a branch of the government which gives grants for business and infrastructural projects.

What I always thought of as a public banks was one that was publicly owned and ran not with huge profits as an aim but for the public good. A bank which takes in deposits at a reasonable interest rate and loans out for a slightly higher interest rate. Any profit that is made can be used for public works such as infrastructural projects. It is still operates similar to private banks just for the people. Loans are based on merit and can be targeted to stimulate particular industries in order to compliment public economic policy. I don't know enough about this to comment further but it certainly sounds like an interesting option that i will be reading more about when I get a chance.

For countries with control over their own currency, public banks lending could be funded purely by money creation - taxes would be used to remove money from circulation later, to prevent inflation, but that would not be funding anything (the money would be permanently removed from circulation).

Once you use money creation for public funding, taxes no longer fund anything, they are just a way of removing money from the economy, to stop inflation from happening.

It would only be a good idea for a public bank to put out money without expecting it back, for public works type projects - not for lending to business and such (that's not out of the question though, I'd need to read up more to see when it is/isn't appropriate).

The bank wouldn't necessarily offer deposit accounts to customers either (so yes, if it's configured like that, it would be more of a public funding institution) - can leave that to private investment banks; if a public bank did offer that though, it could provide deposit accounts either with zero interest, or it could provide interest directly using money creation.

Deposits would not be lent out to fund anything in a public bank - that, in fact, is not even how banking works today (even if it says that in the textbooks): Banks today actually create money when they extend loans (describing the details is complicated, but banks actually are not constrained by reserves, only be capital).

The public bank in North Dakota may be similar to what you describe there, and it would not be too dissimilar to what I describe - but I take it a step further, by considering countries in control of their own currency, and how that may further change the role of a public bank.

I haven't read this myself, but it seems to be one of the main hubs for promoting the idea of public banks, and the author Ellen Brown helps run it I think:
http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/

chrissb8 · 04-11-2013 2:40am

Human greed is good as well. It keeps us wanting more. Human nature is to not be satisfied. If we were like that we wouldn't advance. It's inherent and good in some ways. So don't diss on that. I'm pragmatic about it. Yes we should look after each other and not put so much effort into being over reaching in our desires as individuals in terms of material objects and fancy lifestyles. But I'm not going to make a big step to do that. A capitalist society will fall when it ceases to work end of. There are problems with every system. We have been on this plant for not even a blink of an eye in terms of time. Give it time we can get it right. I think some people are being greedy and impatient in wanting universal goodness. There's alot of pain and learning to get through folks. So suck it up take it on the chin because nothing good came easy or quickly for that matter.

Jesus Wept · 04-11-2013 2:56am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok

Tony EH · 04-11-2013 4:10pm

chrissb8 wrote: »

Human greed is good as well...We have been on this plant for not even a blink of an eye in terms of time. Give it time we can get it right. I think some people are being greedy and impatient in wanting universal goodness. There's alot of pain and learning to get through folks. So suck it up take it on the chin because nothing good came easy or quickly for that matter.

Maybe greed is good on your plant.

But here on Earth, it's been a source of incredible misery.

:pac:

By the by...some people on here seem to be mixing up greed and ambition.

Human greed

Comments