Occupy movement- remember them??

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wall Street makes profits whatever happens. The best thing we can hope for is that the deregulation that resulted in the 2008 financial crash and the "too big to fail" issues can be tackled. It seems that Yellen is interested in doing this.

Considering she hasn't even started the job yet it is unfair to get outraged in advance of that.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who are you debating with?

This is absurd the lady hasn't even started the job yet!
Instead of engaging with comments made you are just pursuing a point no one has made.

Another large action taking place this Friday. Walmart employees are mobilising across the US to highlight the poor wages they are paid and how Walmart is leaching off the taxpayer to subsidise its business model. Occupy are involved in supporting this and providing training for this. Guess that's not doing anything either.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The system in the US? that's undergoing reform at the moment

In Ireland you don't have to borrow to survive, my friend hasn't worked in years and he is arguably better off than most people in India

The entire system of money creation is entirely centered around central bank issued debt which has interest attached, thereby ensuring that the only way to continue creating money is to perpetually create more debt. That's not a US problem, that's how the world's monetary system currently operated, and the problem is that "reform" just isn't enough. That basic system needs to go, money creation needs to stop being a game of musical chairs.

Where do you suppose the first euro came from?

The current system effectively creates scarcity where there isn't actually any real scarcity of goods or services, which is ridiculous.

Jonny7 wrote: »

And what would you have it replaced with?

A not for profit, public-interest driven financial system whose sole purpose is to ensure maximum trade potential and nothing else. Issue new currency without interest attached, etc. I've written about all of this in more detail in older threads, I'm merely pointing out that the system of money and debt that we use only has value because we all agree to assign value to it - we could easily choose to assign value to a completely different system if we wanted to. The current system is designed to benefit a very small elite, and the only reason it's still being used is because it's not talked about enough, in my view.

If more people realized just how currency is created and brought into circulation, I'd imagine more people would be interested in scrapping that system and redesigning it. That's what the creators of Bitcoin were after - not in any way saying they've got it right, but the basic concept of a currency that isn't controlled by vested interest is something I'm glad to see entering the mainstream.

When Occupy Dame Street was around, by far the most interesting lecture given at it was about Guernsey and the fact that they seem to have stopped using the interest-bearing-debt model of issuing new money in the early 20th century and they haven't had a serious banking crisis since.

Again I don't have all the answers, but the purpose initially is to at least get people talking about it, instead of simply accepting the status quo we've all been conditioned to accept and not to question.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A not for profit, public-interest driven financial system whose sole purpose is to ensure maximum trade potential and nothing else. Issue new currency without interest attached, etc. I've written about all of this in more detail in older threads, I'm merely pointing out that the system of money and debt that we use only has value because we all agree to assign value to it - we could easily choose to assign value to a completely different system if we wanted to. The current system is designed to benefit a very small elite, and the only reason it's still being used is because it's not talked about enough, in my view.

If more people realized just how currency is created and brought into circulation, I'd imagine more people would be interested in scrapping that system and redesigning it. That's what the creators of Bitcoin were after - not in any way saying they've got it right, but the basic concept of a currency that isn't controlled by vested interest is something I'm glad to see entering the mainstream.

When Occupy Dame Street was around, by far the most interesting lecture given at it was about Guernsey and the fact that they seem to have stopped using the interest-bearing-debt model of issuing new money in the early 20th century and they haven't had a serious banking crisis since.

Again I don't have all the answers, but the purpose initially is to at least get people talking about it, instead of simply accepting the status quo we've all been conditioned to accept and not to question.

Carte blanche for robbers and thieves. Might as well look for an alternative to gravity!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When Occupy Dame Street was around, by far the most interesting lecture given at it was about Guernsey and the fact that they seem to have stopped using the interest-bearing-debt model of issuing new money in the early 20th century and they haven't had a serious banking crisis since.

An island tax haven where a third of the pop is employed servicing the current banking system - not the best example

Good loser wrote: »

Carte blanche for robbers and thieves. Might as well look for an alternative to gravity!

Let me just ask something here: Why specifically should newly created money be owed back with interest? The concept is bizarre - the only way to ever pay it back is if somebody takes out a new loan which requires even more interest. This basically means that the only way you avoid a financial crisis is if nobody ever decides to save money over time, because as soon as they do that, there's some money which went out from the central bank but won't be going back.

Is it not obvious how daft that system is? It is, to use my previous analogy, like a game of musical chairs which requires the music to play constantly. Any hiccup in the record and everyone will dive for the chairs, which of course there aren't enough of.
Why can't we design a monetary system which does have enough chairs so that we don't require perpetual growth and increasing output over time? Surely a more sensible model would get output to a level at which society's needs in terms of production and demand are catered for, but without requiring growth beyond what's actually demanded?

I have never understood how there could possibly be any common sense in the system we use and I never will, tbh. No one has ever actually managed to produce a decent explanation of why a perpetual debt based, interest bearing system of money creation is actually good for society. Who benefits from it, apart from people who are in charge of the financial sector?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me just ask something here: Why specifically should newly created money be owed back with interest? The concept is bizarre - the only way to ever pay it back is if somebody takes out a new loan which requires even more interest. This basically means that the only way you avoid a financial crisis is if nobody ever decides to save money over time, because as soon as they do that, there's some money which went out from the central bank but won't be going back.

Is it not obvious how daft that system is? It is, to use my previous analogy, like a game of musical chairs which requires the music to play constantly. Any hiccup in the record and everyone will dive for the chairs, which of course there aren't enough of.
Why can't we design a monetary system which does have enough chairs so that we don't require perpetual growth and increasing output over time? Surely a more sensible model would get output to a level at which society's needs in terms of production and demand are catered for, but without requiring growth beyond what's actually demanded?

I have never understood how there could possibly be any common sense in the system we use and I never will, tbh. No one has ever actually managed to produce a decent explanation of why a perpetual debt based, interest bearing system of money creation is actually good for society. Who benefits from it, apart from people who are in charge of the financial sector?

Peader has explained the matter above. I suggest you thank him rather than argue with him.

If money supply is not limited it has no value and thus does not fulfill it's function as a medium of exchange. Money can be given by one person to another (a capital transaction) or lent at interest (a rental transaction).

You're very confused. Compare it with property - another asset which can be bought/sold or rented. Effectively you're saying if you have a vacant property give it to someone/anyone rent free!!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It strikes me that in this case you're talking about private banks with interest bearing loans - this isn't something I have a problem with, what I was referring to was the central bank, which uses the issuing of loans to create new money and bring it into circulation.

So in that scenario, when we're purely talking about the central bank and the monetary policy involved, why should that money have interest attached to it?

Again, if the total amount of money owed back to the central bank always exceeds the amount in circulation, thereby requiring a perpetual debt cycle, how is this beneficial to society? I would argue that this would cause inflation - if I set up a business for €100 but I owe €110 back, I'm going to have to get that €10 from somewhere and logically it can only originate from the central bank, where it too will be owed back with some degree of interest, thereby requiring someone else at some point to take out another interest bearing loan in order for that money to ever get paid back.

Unless I'm missing something, this creates a never-ending cycle of debt from which escape is mathematically impossible.

The extra 10 euro comes from fractional reserve banking. At it simplest the Central Bank mandates banks keep say 10% reserves. So if a bank gets 100 it can only lend €90. That €90 can go to person A who then buys goods worth €90 from person B. Person B puts that €90 into the bank. The bank then can lend out €81 and so on.

That above is Fractional reserve banking in its simplest form probably overly simplified. In the real world there are more than 3 participants. It also ignores that the money supply is not stable with new money being destroyed (whether by actions of the central bank or bank notes being burnt in fire etc) and being created by the Central Bank. It also ignores the actual value of any currency is always in flux when compared to other currencies or gold, silver etc.

Does it require a significant amount of trust that banks will always pay out yes, Hence the reason the banks were bailed out. Had the banks and the economy been managed properly it could have been avoided.

Is it perfect no but no human system is. Which something people like Occupy don't realise.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, but again, since the central bank isn't out to make a profit but to simply facilitate the economic system, what would happen if the central bank issued interest-free money to private banks?
All I'm trying to get at here is that these systems are designed by humans for humans, and are not set in stone. If they're not working for us (which they're not), we should at least discuss the idea of changing to different systems entirely. It seems to me that fractional reserve banking as you describe it has been at the root of many financial crises owing to the musical chairs analogy I described earlier - is it really so outrageous to suggest that this system be replaced?

Any system which has been in place for decades without any serious changes to its inner workings is probably out of date.

What would happen if rates were at 0%? Depends on the state of the economy, the interest rate before the move, government policies, action of other governments, state of banks etc. The fact that your caught up with a certain % says how little you've understood my posts. I should also point out that the ECB interest rate is practically 0 as it is if that helps answer your question.

Not a simple answer but the question isn't simple when you get down into the details.

Also you describe any process as musical chairs if one element doesn't work the whole thing falls apart so it isn't unique to the monetary system. There were options to negate the current situation but people between 2002-2008 chose to vote for politicians who they wanted to fuel the bubble which caused the crisis. No matter what system you use it'll break if people want it to.

You describe the system as unchanging while ignoring the move to floating exchange rate, Bretton Woods Agreement and Gold Standard. All changes in the last 80 years or so. And they're only the big/major changes. It ignores a whole host of relatively smaller agreements and changes.

If you plan to replace the current system why and what would replace it? Some advice would be to learn how the current system works and its strengths and weaknesses before you try replace it. What I've given in my posts is the very basics. Someone with more knowledge in the area could give you more detailed information if you have the time to read/listen.

The reason Occupy failed is that for all the issues with our current system they failed to properly articulate a better way and had a very poor understanding of the issues they were talking about.

20Cent wrote: »

Yet two years later its still talked about and active.

Except it's not.

20Cent wrote: »

Read the op of this thread?

That's in America, the movement has died here.

20Cent wrote: »

Threads about America.

Except it's not. Why do you subscribe to these guys anyway? You never explained.