The Anti-Austerity Crowd

The_Captain · 19-05-2014 11:20AM

I love how the arguements against Anti-austerity campaigners claim that we'll end up unable to afford housing, have no disposable income, the country will be broke and the government will have to massively cut services.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 11:26AM

The_Captain wrote: »

I love how the arguements against Anti-austerity campaigners claim that we'll end up unable to afford housing, have no disposable income, the country will be broke and the government will have to massively cut services.

What is your point? If you look at what they are suggesting it is pretty much what will happen. All the anti-austerity campaigns suggest tax every form on investment or incomes (hire earners) and disincentives to earning.

hatrickpatrick · 19-05-2014 11:42AM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Well in the case of government bonds they pay it back like all governments do with tax revenues and other sources of income.

In the case of companies they pay it back with sales revenues.

I think you're missing the fundamental question - where does this other money to pay it back come from in the first place? Who creates it? How is it created, how does it get into circulation? I'm not asking you who the government / banks / whatever get it from, I'm asking where the ultimate source of it is. Money hasn't always existed, it's a human invention, ergo at some point, somebody has created money. Even if you believe that money supply is fixed and that no new money is ever created, that still leaves us with the problem of explaining where the fixed amount of money you believe exists, came from in the first place. If it didn't always exist, someone has to have created it.

You're illustrating Kyuss' point perfectly about cognitive dissonance (and I don't mean that as an insult or slur, I assure you) - this question is something most people are happy to never think about, and when they try, the truth is so mind bogglingly ridiculous that they frantically try to explain it away, as you're doing.
The reason I'm not (yet) spelling out the truth is that I want to get to the root of what you believe - this is the only way to explain this situation to people. It's the only way it could be explained to me when I first learned it, and it worked.
So where do you believe all of that money originally came from? Who created it?

A question for you, the numbers here are off the top of my head but the precise details aren't too important.

Their exists country A and it's GDP is 100 Billion in local currency and their exist 5 billion of of the local currency. Are you aware that is a normal and healthy economic situation?

I'm aware that it's a normal economic situation. I don't agree that it's healthy - "normal" in our world clearly isn't the same as "healthy". It's "normal" to have horrible boom and bust cycles with recessions just like these every few years despite the fact that real, physical factors governing maximum possible quality of life haven't changed - normal, but certainly not healthy or desirable.
To give you another analogy, it's "normal" that murder exists in most societies, but it certainly isn't healthy.

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2014 11:47AM

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I see Paul Murphy's election posters promise more jobs and better jobs. Considering his ideologies one cannot help but think Paul's ideas of a good job is working in a State owned Tractor Engine factory on the outskirts of Mullingar.

"Lisbon for jobs."

The_Captain · 19-05-2014 11:48AM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What is your point?

We currently can't afford housing, have no disposable income, the country is massively in debt and front-line services are being cut.

(Usually refuted with: I'm rich and can afford housing no problem. Therefore everyone can!)

Cazzoenorme · 19-05-2014 11:53AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the fundamental question - where does this other money to pay it back come from in the first place? Who creates it? How is it created, how does it get into circulation? I'm not asking you who the government / banks / whatever get it from, I'm asking where the ultimate source of it is. Money hasn't always existed, it's a human invention, ergo at some point, somebody has created money. Even if you believe that money supply is fixed and that no new money is ever created, that still leaves us with the problem of explaining where the fixed amount of money you believe exists, came from in the first place. If it didn't always exist, someone has to have created it.

You're illustrating Kyuss' point perfectly about cognitive dissonance (and I don't mean that as an insult or slur, I assure you) - this question is something most people are happy to never think about, and when they try, the truth is so mind bogglingly ridiculous that they frantically try to explain it away, as you're doing.
The reason I'm not (yet) spelling out the truth is that I want to get to the root of what you believe - this is the only way to explain this situation to people. It's the only way it could be explained to me when I first learned it, and it worked.
So where do you believe all of that money originally came from? Who created it?

I'm aware that it's a normal economic situation. I don't agree that it's healthy - "normal" in our world clearly isn't the same as "healthy". It's "normal" to have horrible boom and bust cycles with recessions just like these every few years despite the fact that real, physical factors governing maximum possible quality of life haven't changed - normal, but certainly not healthy or desirable.
To give you another analogy, it's "normal" that murder exists in most societies, but it certainly isn't healthy.

Why do you believe the scenario I described isn't economically healthy?

In fact the higher the multiple of GDP to actual cash in the economy the more healthy and productive an economy is generally speaking.

To answer your question: Money in an economy comes from the printing machine which the central bank or government controls.

A healthy economy is one which is productive and efficient econonomy where trading is highly active. Basically money passes from market participants at a very fast rate in a healthy and productive economy.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 12:05PM

The_Captain wrote: »

We currently can't afford housing, have no disposable income, the country is massively in debt and front-line services are being cut.

(Usually refuted with: I'm rich and can afford housing no problem. Therefore everyone can!)

What and who is the we? The government can provide housing but people won't take it unless it is where they want. Governments don't really ever have disposable income. Yes the country has a debit they are and can service. Less income to spend on services is a reality because less people are working and earn less.
If you reduce investment and people earning money don't spend it everything gets worse. If people with money don't spend it you have less jobs for people to work.

Some of the front line services should never have been given in the first place and it is no surprised they are being cut. Medical cards for people earning very high incomes was lunacy. Special needs care at the expense of the majority of students. These were some really terrible ideas.

L'Enfer du Nord · 19-05-2014 12:14PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

3) Many if not most high earners had nothing to do with banking. Even those that do had little or no responsibility for the decisions. A huge problem actually arose from people taking out loans and being unable to pay them back. That is less likely to be high earners. Part of the argument seems to be credit shouldn't have been given out. That means people are saying lower earners were too stupid to be able to consider their own actions.

Any evidence that a significant proportion of this countries' non-performing loans are owed by low earners or that 'high earners' as a group hold a smaller proportion of non-performing loans?

I don't think many very low earners (people on minimum wage or state benefits) have mortgages.

Here's an example of a high earner who isn't paying back all the money he owes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/does-nama-pragmatism-mean-developer-bailouts-1.1800377

Owes 1.8. billion only 1.1 has been recovered by Nama after selling on the loan and he (O'Flynn) is supposedly one of the more cooperative Nama developers.

Seriously post some evidence that there is a significant number of 'low earners' who owe six figure sums that they aren't paying back.

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 12:19PM

Listened to Jill Kirby on the radio last night, she was part of a panel that included a person from Sinn Fein. Jill outlined SF tax policy.
Sinn Fein believe we need to be taxed more.
If you have any get up and go in you for example and you make a capital gain, the state should take 43% of your gain according to SF policy, up from the current 33%.
The anti-austerity people will just drive people away if they got power, they lower incentives for doing well.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 12:27PM

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Seriously post some evidence that there is a significant number of 'low earners' who owe six figure sums that they aren't paying back.

you do get that is a ridiculous argument. Why is it a 6 figure some I have to prove? Why is it I minimum wage and those on social welfare that are the people that have to proved? I would say there are quite a few people who were earning more money before that bought houses that they no longer can afford now.

Pointing to a business that failed is not a valid example. The reason banks and investment failed was because the payments stopped from.

I'll post up a link as soon as you point to higher earners (not investors) not paying their loans and I will point to low earners defaulting.

The_Captain · 19-05-2014 12:54PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What and who is the we? The government can provide housing but people won't take it unless it is where they want. Governments don't really ever have disposable income. Yes the country has a debit they are and can service. Less income to spend on services is a reality because less people are working and earn less.
If you reduce investment and people earning money don't spend it everything gets worse. If people with money don't spend it you have less jobs for people to work.

Some of the front line services should never have been given in the first place and it is no surprised they are being cut. Medical cards for people earning very high incomes was lunacy. Special needs care at the expense of the majority of students. These were some really terrible ideas.

So basically if you can't afford to rent or buy get a council house; the government is cutting services because there's so many people out of work or struggling on low wages and giving money to special needs services is a terrible idea.

And yet those anti-austerity fools want to end this beautiful utopia.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 01:39PM

The_Captain wrote: »

So basically if you can't afford to rent or buy get a council house; the government is cutting services because there's so many people out of work or struggling on low wages and giving money to special needs services is a terrible idea.

And yet those anti-austerity fools want to end this beautiful utopia.

Not what I said but you hear what you want.

Anti-austerity have no legitimate plan and what they have will make things worse.

L'Enfer du Nord · 19-05-2014 01:40PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

you do get that is a ridiculous argument. Why is it a 6 figure some I have to prove? Why is it I minimum wage and those on social welfare that are the people that have to proved? I would say there are quite a few people who were earning more money before that bought houses that they no longer can afford now.

Pointing to a business that failed is not a valid example. The reason banks and investment failed was because the payments stopped from.

I'll post up a link as soon as you point to higher earners (not investors) not paying their loans and I will point to low earners defaulting.

A huge problem actually arose from people taking out loans and being unable to pay them back. That is less likely to be high earners.

No mention of what people spent it on, if your point was high earners are unlikely to run up enough debts through their lifestyle/living costs alone that they won't be able to pay them back, I would agree. I'm not arguing that all or most high earners are responsible for the country's debt crisis. I would argue however that most of the unpaid debts are owed by people who weren't low earners. You however argue that "A huge problem actually arose from people taking out loans and being unable to pay them back. That is less likely to be high earners." So who is it then? Your next sentences implies that the extension of credit to low earners has been a problem. "Part of the argument seems to be credit shouldn't have been given out. That means people are saying lower earners were too stupid to be able to consider their own actions."

Why is it phenomenon of high earners borrowing money for investments out of bounds in a discussion on austerity? But low earns failing to pay back there debts is? What proportion of the debt crisis which caused by each of these phenomena?

Any way here some examples:

Chairman of a bank
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0712/133217-anglo/

white collar professional and company director
http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/uncategorized/talking-with-a-strategic-defaulter/

Accountant turned business man, turned land lord:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elderly-couple-evicted-from-home-on-millionaires-row-26844630.html

I didn't define low earners as people on minimum wage, I described those people as being 'very low earners'.

In any event I haven't seen low earners taking significant loans being reported as a serious problem for banks. All that's report is significant levels of mortgage arrears. When details do emerge of individual cases even if the are low earners now they usually weren't when the took out the loans.

You brought the expansion of credit to low earners into the argument, please post some evidence that this (if it happened) has anything to do austerity.

BBJBIG · 19-05-2014 02:06PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

"Lisbon for jobs."

What a bunch of Wankeros that voted for this :eek:
Sometimes d'Oirish electorate really deserves what it gets :mad:

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 02:27PM

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Why is it phenomenon of high earners borrowing money for investments out of bounds in a discussion on austerity? But low earns failing to pay back there debts is? What proportion of the debt crisis which caused by each of these phenomena?

.

It's kind of simple. The people who invested in property weren't by definition high earners. The people you pointed to where people who were no longer high earners but high stakes investors. I am no where near the level of the head of bank yet am classed as a high earner. The suggestion is tax me more because I got the country in this state which I didn't.

The whole cause of the financial crisis was giving loans to low income people and then reselling them as investments. If the low earners had paid their loans there would be no problem. The reason they got the loans was because there was incentives to do so. This was because people pointed to them no being able to own homes. Pretty much part of what the ant-austerity support call for in a round about way.

Giving out loans to people who were temporarily earning high unsustainable salaries is the most likely source of default mortgages. A plumber earning as much as a highly paid professional bought above their sustainable means. Thy also took out large loans/credit on lots of things. You can say the banks shouldn't have given them the money but equally they shouldn't have taken out the loans/mortgages. Many tradesmen and similar work are people on the dole and low income wages. Many of whom pay little or no income tax.

So where is my responsibility in this where I should pay more income tax because I studied and learnt an in demand skill. I never forced a loan on anybody but I am being blamed.

You are also ignoring all the small time property investors who bought recklessly borrowing on their home based on appreciation of their home. Values dropped and they lost their jobs and rent doesn't cover the mortgages. I know of three tradesmen that did this and were telling me I was stupid not to do it their way. a few years later and they resent me for having a small debit and still earning. They have called for higher taxes to be paid by the high earners. Maybe if they didn't buy three houses they wouldn't be so stuffed. They also do cash in hand jobs all the time. Not even willing to pay their own level of taxes.

Bubbaclaus · 19-05-2014 02:27PM

BBJBIG wrote: »

What a bunch of Wankeros that voted for this :eek:
Sometimes d'Oirish electorate really deserves what it gets :mad:

I'm not sure you know what oirish means, as you keep using it incorrectly.

Geuze · 19-05-2014 02:39PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the fundamental question - where does this other money to pay it back come from in the first place? Who creates it? How is it created, how does it get into circulation? I'm not asking you who the government / banks / whatever get it from, I'm asking where the ultimate source of it is. Money hasn't always existed, it's a human invention, ergo at some point, somebody has created money. Even if you believe that money supply is fixed and that no new money is ever created, that still leaves us with the problem of explaining where the fixed amount of money you believe exists, came from in the first place. If it didn't always exist, someone has to have created it.

So where do you believe all of that money originally came from? Who created it?

I'm not an expert on history, but I think coins were being used hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

Now paper money was first used in Britain in 1694, around the time the central bank was established.

Loire · 19-05-2014 02:39PM

My problem is with the word Austerity itself. We are still spending way more than we are taking in. So by continuing to borrow to fund this shortfall, are we not actually INFLATING our economy?

Geuze · 19-05-2014 02:40PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the fundamental question - where does this other money to pay it back come from in the first place? Who creates it? How is it created, how does it get into circulation? I'm not asking you who the government / banks / whatever get it from, I'm asking where the ultimate source of it is. Money hasn't always existed, it's a human invention, ergo at some point, somebody has created money. Even if you believe that money supply is fixed and that no new money is ever created, that still leaves us with the problem of explaining where the fixed amount of money you believe exists, came from in the first place. If it didn't always exist, someone has to have created it.

So where do you believe all of that money originally came from? Who created it?

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/pages/about/history.aspx

This may help answer your questions.

The_Captain · 19-05-2014 02:55PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not what I said but you hear what you want.

Clearly I'm twisting your words

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The government can provide housing but people won't take it unless it is where they want.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Less income to spend on services is a reality because less people are working and earn less.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Special needs care at the expense of the majority of students. These were some really terrible ideas.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 03:09PM

The_Captain wrote: »

Clearly I'm twisting your words

Yes and selective quoting doesn't show you in a good light either. You are more bothered about getting digs in than actually discussing the points. Enjoy your fun but nobody reading the thread is fooled unless they think that is debate too.

L'Enfer du Nord · 19-05-2014 03:16PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It's kind of simple. The people who invested in property weren't by definition high earners. The people you pointed to where people who were no longer high earners but high stakes investors. I am no where near the level of the head of bank yet am classed as a high earner. The suggestion is tax me more because I got the country in this state which I didn't.

Indeed, but you claimed that high earners as a group are less likely to be unable to pay back loans. Clearly a hugh amount of unpaid debts is owed by people who were high earners. You now want to distinguish yourself a part of a sub-set of high earners who aren't tradesmen or investors. What ever about trades men are you trying to tell me that only a small sub-set of high earners make investments? If so why did you post this:

You earn money that you pay tax on why should you be taxed again on the fruits of your labour? This investment creates jobs and also creates services that are needed....You can lose your home if this goes wrong and many anti-austerity people want that to happen as a punishment. Fine but don't expect people to invest if you tax the hell out of any investment and profit and also want to punish people as much as possible if it goes wrong.

The whole cause of the financial crisis was giving loans to low income people and then reselling them as investments. If the low earners had paid their loans there would be no problem. The reason they got the loans was because there was incentives to do so. This was because people pointed to them no being able to own homes.

This happened in the United States nearly a decade ago not here. Again I ask for some evidence that giving out loans to low earners in Ireland contributed to the current debt crisis in Ireland. Or would you as a high earner in ireland perhaps like to be judged on the behavior of high earners in some other country of my choosing?

Giving out loans to people who were temporarily earning high unsustainable salaries is the most likely source of default mortgages. A plumber earning as much as a highly paid professional bought above their sustainable means. Thy also took out large loans/credit on lots of things. You can say the banks shouldn't have given them the money but equally they shouldn't have taken out the loans/mortgages. Many tradesmen and similar work are people on the dole and low income wages. Many of whom pay little or no income tax.

So banks didn't do necessary risk assessments on self empolyed tradesmen who were high earners, not the shop assistants and McDonald's employees you choose to invoke in your original post as example of low earners.

You are also ignoring all the small time property investors who bought recklessly borrowing on their home based on appreciation of their home. Values dropped and they lost their jobs and rent doesn't cover the mortgages.

How am ignoring them? They are not examples of low earners that spring to mind, you only mentioned shop assistants and McDonald's workers.

Your position doesn't appear to deviate from the standard "Someone else should pay, but not me".

Fine but reading you original post I was struck by how you talked up the supposed values of high earners while characterizing low earners as unskilled shop assistants and McDonald's workers then implying that low earns failing pay back their debts was a cause of austerity and

That means people are saying lower earners were too stupid to be able to consider their own actions.

Of course no one other than you has said this.

As a high earner you also wish to distinguish yourself from high earners who borrowed money and subsequently lost their jobs or suffered a drop in income and high earns who make investments (having previously yourself extolled the virtues of investment). At the same time you happy to lump low earns from different continents together.

Your example of a high earner is a Java programmer in contrast to the unskilled examples you give for low earners. There's lots of different people on low incomes many are doing difficult jobs, some are on fixed incomes due to disability. The lowest paid job I've ever done was working at night in a hospital laundry, also the hardest. Some high earns may be highly skilled and in great demand. Others however are in heavily protected professions or business with high barriers to entry. Of course this doesn't fit in with the general thrust of your original post 'High Earners Good' 'Low earners feckless idiots'.

Frank Lee Midere · 19-05-2014 03:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think you're missing the fundamental question - where does this other money to pay it back come from in the first place? Who creates it? How is it created, how does it get into circulation? I'm not asking you who the government / banks / whatever get it from, I'm asking where the ultimate source of it is. Money hasn't always existed, it's a human invention, ergo at some point, somebody has created money. Even if you believe that money supply is fixed and that no new money is ever created, that still leaves us with the problem of explaining where the fixed amount of money you believe exists, came from in the first place. If it didn't always exist, someone has to have created it.

You're illustrating Kyuss' point perfectly about cognitive dissonance (and I don't mean that as an insult or slur, I assure you) - this question is something most people are happy to never think about, and when they try, the truth is so mind bogglingly ridiculous that they frantically try to explain it away, as you're doing.
The reason I'm not (yet) spelling out the truth is that I want to get to the root of what you believe - this is the only way to explain this situation to people. It's the only way it could be explained to me when I first learned it, and it worked.
So where do you believe all of that money originally came from? Who created it?

I'm aware that it's a normal economic situation. I don't agree that it's healthy - "normal" in our world clearly isn't the same as "healthy". It's "normal" to have horrible boom and bust cycles with recessions just like these every few years despite the fact that real, physical factors governing maximum possible quality of life haven't changed - normal, but certainly not healthy or desirable.
To give you another analogy, it's "normal" that murder exists in most societies, but it certainly isn't healthy.

1) money has been around for millennia. No ancient city of any size used barter. There can be no economy without money.
2) if money isn't issued as debt it has to be produced by the government or authority ( this is always the case for all currency) and the only alternative in capitalist societies is for money to be released only as public sector wages or public sector projects.
3) the problem isn't money as debt it's how the banks subsequently loan on the money and to whom. If it were to productive industry it would be ok, if to assets it can be disastrous.

The point of money as debt is to promote economic activity which repays up the debt. Money flowing into non wealth producing assets is not productive. Money flowing into productive assets and businesses is. That's what has been lost.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 03:56PM

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Of course this doesn't fit in with the general thrust of your original post 'High Earners Good' 'Low earners feckless idiots'.

Nonsense response. I didn't say that. You want to say investors that were high earners are the same. They aren't. It isn't so much a subclass as it is a completely different group doing a completely different thing. Huge difference to taking a huge gamble with investment and it failing versus getting into debit buying a big TV or a sofa on credit you can't afford. You are going to extremes to make a point. How about looking at the big picture?

You miss the premise of loans to poorly paid damaged international markets which effected here, kick starting the financial crash worldwide. Part of the idea spread here to give out the loans. People were shouting at the banks to lend more to everybody. If you missed that here you weren't paying attention. The banks actually were doing what the public were asking. It was a bad idea. To an extent that is what ant-austerity is saying again.

If you think working in a hospital laundry is the hard job you might being using a different definition. Physically tiring, difficult to physical do etc... Yeah though back breaking work. Requiring education? Hard to replace a person capable of doing it? It is labouring job that many many people could do has little reward because of this. Don't see any reason why it should be highly paid. I worked in a bar for a number of years lugging beer kegs around a lot tough work but I was easily replaceable

Some of low paid now were once the people earning good money in the boom. The biggest drop in employment was the building trade and hence they suffer the most.

I have already said when you can prove the biggest defaults are from high earners I'll refute with the lowest earners.

Go ahead and increase the taxes I'll move taking my money out of the country. I'll also make sure any inheritance coming my way comes out of the country too. I am making the plans now either way as I am not happy with it stands. That is lost revenue to the state due to tax.

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 04:19PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The general ideas from the anti-austerity crowd seems to be as follows
1) Those who earn more should pay more
2) Those who earn more probably don't deserve it
3) High earners are responsible for the economic crisis regardless of their job
4) Any investments made by people should be taxed or taken off people
5) Any assets people have when they die should be heavily taxed

Why I have a problem with this
1) They already do and it is a disincentive to work

2) Maybe but jobs generally pay based on rarity of the skill. Somebody working in a shop or McDonald's can be easily replaced. A java programmer is harder to replace and a scarce skill. Why would anybody bother learning a skill if they would not earn more? Should a hand crafted chair cost the same as mass produced chair?

3) Many if not most high earners had nothing to do with banking. Even those that do had little or no responsibility for the decisions. A huge problem actually arose from people taking out loans and being unable to pay them back. That is less likely to be high earners. Part of the argument seems to be credit shouldn't have been given out. That means people are saying lower earners were too stupid to be able to consider their own actions. This would lead back to point 2. If it such a rare understanding of finance then how are they capable of earning better money with their abilities?

4) You earn money that you pay tax on why should you be taxed again on the fruits of your labour? This investment creates jobs and also creates services that are needed. Private landlords provide a service that is needed, if they didn't do this more people would be homeless. If anybody thinks rent is unearned they have never been a LL. It takes work,time and risk.
You can lose your home if this goes wrong and many anti-austerity people want that to happen as a punishment. Fine but don't expect people to invest if you tax the hell out of any investment and profit and also want to punish people as much as possible if it goes wrong.

5)Similar to point 4. It will just stop job creation and investment in this country by it's own residents. It will also prevent inward investment.

Essentially it all comes down to I don't want to pay any more and I want somebody else to pay without any regard for economic reality.

There's been plenty discussion in this thread (occupying a large part of it in fact), which has nothing to do with any of this - so again, this seems to be pigeonholing anyone remotely deemed 'anti-austerity', into holding this narrowly defined set of arguments - straw-manning many people in the process.

I mean, it's typical of these threads - there's been discussion of some big/important issues unrelated to the above, and alternatives that are available, and then someone just comes in with stuff like this as if nothing like that had been discussed - it's similar to someone repeating "well what are the alternatives?!

" repeatedly, while all the alternatives are still being held up right in their face.

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 04:23PM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

...To answer your question: Money in an economy comes from the printing machine which the central bank or government controls.

Aaaaaand where does it go from there, to get into the econ....oh nvm he's finally banned for re-regging.

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 04:27PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not what I said but you hear what you want.

Anti-austerity have no legitimate plan and what they have will make things worse.

Oh look: *fingers in ears* "la-la-la there are no alternatives"...

Didn't predict that at all.

Ray Palmer · 19-05-2014 04:29PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There's been plenty discussion in this thread (occupying a large part of it in fact), which has nothing to do with any of this - so again, this seems to be pigeonholing anyone remotely deemed 'anti-austerity', into holding this narrowly defined set of arguments - straw-manning many people in the process.

I mean, it's typical of these threads - there's been discussion of some big/important issues unrelated to the above, and alternatives that are available, and then someone just comes in with stuff like this as if nothing like that had been discussed - it's similar to someone repeating "well what are the alternatives?! " repeatedly, while all the alternatives are still being held up right in their face.

I read the entire thread before posting and if you claim there are arguments I didn't include number them and add them.

It is typical of these thread that one person keeps repeating themselves and ignoring questions put to them. If you feel you have something to add to what I said feel free otherwise I see no point in posts like this without pointing out the "other" points missed are.

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 04:31PM

Geuze wrote: »

I'm not an expert on history, but I think coins were being used hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

Now paper money was first used in Britain in 1694, around the time the central bank was established.

True, but debt/credit-money was being used far back into history - Tally-Sticks were a form of managing credit/debt/currency, going a long way back.

KyussBishop · 19-05-2014 04:40PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

1) money has been around for millennia. No ancient city of any size used barter. There can be no economy without money.
2) if money isn't issued as debt it has to be produced by the government or authority ( this is always the case for all currency) and the only alternative in capitalist societies is for money to be released only as public sector wages or public sector projects.
3) the problem isn't money as debt it's how the banks subsequently loan on the money and to whom. If it were to productive industry it would be ok, if to assets it can be disastrous.

The point of money as debt is to promote economic activity which repays up the debt. Money flowing into non wealth producing assets is not productive. Money flowing into productive assets and businesses is. That's what has been lost.

Money-as-debt is the problem - think about it: If all money starts out 1:1 with debt, and if Debt carries interest, then the ratio of Debt:Money is going to grow forever - with the total stock of Debt growing many multiples the size of Money, 10x, 40x, 100x etc.; this is unsustainable.

In such a monetary system, the only possible way to reduce the Debt:Money ratio, is to lend out more money (introducing new money/debt at a 1:1 ratio, bringing Debt:Money closer to that ratio) - and this (for complicated reasons) requires accelerating economic growth, forever, which is a physical impossibility since the planet has finite resources.

The Anti-Austerity Crowd

Comments