Revolution is coming

unskinnybob said:
Governments have pretty much free reign to set taxes to whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Umm no.

Taxes at a state/provincial or national level are subject to market principles. States and nations compete to attract capital (including human capital) on the basis of their tax/value offering.
 
Arthur said:
Er, yes. So? Once taxes go over about 10% or so they become evil.
Click to expand...

"Evil" is meaningless.

Taxes are a value proposition.

People evaluate tax in conjucture with the services the state offers. A low tax rate comes at expense of services. It's up to the individual to decide what they prefer and where they wish to live.

Frankly SA's value proposition in this respect is horrendous.
 
alloytoo said:
Likewise a bank sells the use of money for a period for a return. The bank could buy and sell stock and make a profit, instead it lends to someone who can do that, and he pays a portion of his profit to them.
Click to expand...

YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING

Think out of the box mate.

Banks don't need to make profits just like some hospitals work around the world. It doesn't need to be a company.

Watch Documentaries. Read some books. Learn something.


you are just so deep in this system, your brain can't even imagine anything else.
 
Keeper said:
YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly, you have absolutely no grasp of basic economics.

Think out of the box mate.

Banks don't need to make profits just like some hospitals work around the world. It doesn't need to be a company.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing banks to hospital?

Banks facilitate the transfer of capital from those that have it to those that need it.

The bank pays interest to those who deposit money, and charges those who borrow it. It takes the difference in interest received from the interest paid and applies it to overheads, what's left goes to shareholders.

If a bank didn't charge interest for the money it leant out it wouldn't be able to pay interest to it's depositors and investors.

Depositors and investors would therefore not put their money into the bank and it would have no money to lend.

Banks exist because there is a demand for financing, that demand is met by a supply from depositors and investors.

Hospitals that don't make a profit are normally part of state health care, the bill is paid by the taxpayer. This works (and indeed some studies show it provides better outcomes to private healthcare) because demand is not subject to market forces (Generally people don't want to get sick more often because medical treatment is free), and the state is able to facilitate supply at a cost of higher taxes.


Watch Documentaries. Read some books. Learn something.
Click to expand...

Or one could study economics, business economics and quanitative management at university.

you are just so deep in this system, your brain can't even imagine anything else.
Click to expand...

Economics is based on the laws of supply and demand. History has shown that you ignore those laws at your peril.
 
Keeper said:
I don't blame people for not being able to see another system, because the current system has been engraved into us for so long.

it's okay to make a profit for providing a service - like renting a car, for example. cars need repairs, you need to keep them somewhere and pay for land, staff, etc.
If you borrow a car, and return it, there are damages,etc....when you borrow money and give it back, nothing has really changed.

so what im saying is, in the future (hopefully), everyone will have "credits". computers handle all the transactions, no charges for drawing money, no charges for borrowing some temporarily.
you might think this sounds "crazy", but look at bitcoin. it's possible.

there is NO REASON when you borrow money, that you have to give more back - you are creating the money because when you borrow, you create debt.
debt = money creation.

If only the government would create a system like bitcoin / "virtual wallet" it can be done - but they wont, because there is so much money to be made in this system.
Click to expand...

There is risk in borrowing money, some don't pay it back. Also computers use electricity, and they have parts and software that need to be bought and maintained...
 
alloytoo said:
I understand perfectly, you have absolutely no grasp of basic economics.
Click to expand...
I think Keeper's point is the current day economic model is not sustainable much longer. The world needs a radical economic rework.

alloytoo said:
I disagree on greed, certainly greed needs to be contained, but it should be harnessed rather than shackled.
Click to expand...
IMHO greed comes at someone's expense.
 
unskinnybob said:
I think Keeper's point is the current day economic model is not sustainable much longer. The world needs a radical economic rework.
Click to expand...

Any economic model that ignores Adam smith's invisible hand is doomed to failure.

IMHO greed comes at someone's expense.
Click to expand...

Living comes at someone or something's expense. Capitalism has thus far grown the pie faster than any alternative.
 
alloytoo said:
I understand perfectly, you have absolutely no grasp of basic economics.



Are you seriously comparing banks to hospital?

Banks facilitate the transfer of capital from those that have it to those that need it.

The bank pays interest to those who deposit money, and charges those who borrow it. It takes the difference in interest received from the interest paid and applies it to overheads, what's left goes to shareholders.

If a bank didn't charge interest for the money it leant out it wouldn't be able to pay interest to it's depositors and investors.

Depositors and investors would therefore not put their money into the bank and it would have no money to lend.

Banks exist because there is a demand for financing, that demand is met by a supply from depositors and investors.

Hospitals that don't make a profit are normally part of state health care, the bill is paid by the taxpayer. This works (and indeed some studies show it provides better outcomes to private healthcare) because demand is not subject to market forces (Generally people don't want to get sick more often because medical treatment is free), and the state is able to facilitate supply at a cost of higher taxes.
Click to expand...

sigh..... stop thinking about "investors" and interest and whatnot.
(btw people will keep money in banks because its safer, but this is besides the point really)

Think of the bitcoin system.
Did anyone get interest on their bitcoins? did anyone pay banking fee's? any transfer costs from person to person? was there any operational costs?

If some sort of similar concept was adopted by governments, there would be no banks taking in billions from the public. there would be no money printing.
People could transfer money with cellphones, or by entering pins into payment points (maybe even fingerprint?)

nobody could steal anymore...anywhere.
yes, everybody would be a walking atm because they could litteraly transfer any amount of money to any account...correct? but, if a person is held up by a mugger, and money is stolen, he could go to the police and report the last transaction was a robbery, and they could see exactly which account (and who) it was.
similarly, if a person was robbed and murdered, police could check his last few transactions to see for anything suspicious (like large amounts of money being transferred)

no cash.
this also means is a person was caught buying a stolen car/illegal drugs/etc, they could easily track the people down who was selling it.

a lot of crime can be curbed in a system like this.


people wouldn't make money from money itself just sitting in a vault, and the 90% who borrow don't need to pay huge fees for borrowing money.
money is just a value on a computer you know, they don't really have every single note in existence.




I understand some people cannot get this idea around their heads, because in today's system, it does make sense.
the fact is the system doesn't need to be this way. the banks (and gov) just prefer it.
 
Keeper said:
Anarchy means "Lawlessness" Right?

Hmmm...Who do you think are the ones breaking the law here:
-The Police Assaulting & hurting people using excessive force
-The People who have a right to protest, who are non-violent.

Anarchic-loving? I think it's quite the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

Anarchy is about chaos and disorder. Anarchists want to break down societies structure and rules.


So um... not what you said.
 
Nerfherder said:
Anarchy is about chaos and disorder. Anarchists want to break down societies structure and rules.


So um... not what you said.
Click to expand...
ya that boat has sailed my friend, we are talking about something else now
 
Keeper said:
sigh..... stop thinking about "investors" and interest and whatnot.
(btw people will keep money in banks because its safer, but this is besides the point really)
Click to expand...


People put savings into banks, banks pool said savings and issue loans.

Think of the bitcoin system.
Did anyone get interest on their bitcoins? did anyone pay banking fee's? any transfer costs from person to person? was there any operational costs?
Click to expand...

Bitcoin wasn't a bank, bitcoin was a currency.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/all/1

It's also been described as a pyramid scheme.

If some sort of similar concept was adopted by governments, there would be no banks taking in billions from the public. there would be no money printing.
Click to expand...

There would wild fluctuations in currency value, hoarding and massive potential for laundering and fraud.....gosh all the thinks responsible central banks try to minimise.

People could transfer money with cellphones, or by entering pins into payment points (maybe even fingerprint?)
Click to expand...

Which they can do now.....

nobody could steal anymore...anywhere.
yes, everybody would be a walking atm because they could litteraly transfer any amount of money to any account...correct? but, if a person is held up by a mugger, and money is stolen, he could go to the police and report the last transaction was a robbery, and they could see exactly which account (and who) it was.
similarly, if a person was robbed and murdered, police could check his last few transactions to see for anything suspicious (like large amounts of money being transferred)
Click to expand...

Which happens right now.
no cash.
this also means is a person was caught buying a stolen car/illegal drugs/etc, they could easily track the people down who was selling it.

a lot of crime can be curbed in a system like this.
Click to expand...

A lot of crime is already being curbed by a migration to electronic transactions. (being going on for more than fifteen years)

people wouldn't make money from money itself just sitting in a vault, and the 90% who borrow don't need to pay huge fees for borrowing money.
Click to expand...

If people can't make money from unused money, then there will be no money for people to borrow......to wit another great depression, another GEC.

money is just a value on a computer you know, they don't really have every single note in existence.
Click to expand...

Gosh golly really [/sarcasm]

I understand some people cannot get this idea around their heads, because in today's system, it does make sense.
the fact is the system doesn't need to be this way. the banks (and gov) just prefer it.
Click to expand...

Some people just don't understand laws of supply and demand.
 
Hey I didn't say the money supply should necessarily need to be fixed - just apposed to banks taking so much.

banks shouldn't be companies.
 
Keeper said:
Hey I didn't say the money supply should necessarily need to be fixed - just apposed to banks taking so much.

banks shouldn't be companies.
Click to expand...
What's the alternative? A social service by government? A public utility? So you want banks funded by taxpayers?

Ever looked at the cost to consumers of government-provided services like telecommunications, television and broadcasting, not to speak of education, medical care, transportation ... they are invariably more expensive in overall cost to society than private sector entities doing the same work. Oh, and if you think state-provided education or medical care or anything else is "free" or "low cost", you really need to take a closer look at how much they really cost society (the politicians are hiding the real costs from their voters, bribing them with handouts). The government bureaucrats and clerks who administer these giant "public service" bureaucracies draw salaries and produce nothing of value. The consume and don't produce, and therfore leech off real working people. They should be abolished, along with 98% of state entities.
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
Hey I didn't say the money supply should necessarily need to be fixed - just apposed to banks taking so much.

banks shouldn't be companies.
Click to expand...

Retail banks should be companies so that there is competition. Cant be a state entity because then it will be expensive and prone to corruption and political will and political mismanagement, cant be a none-entity cause someone has to maintain the money exchange infrastucture and pay the salaries of those maintaining the infrastucture. I wouldn't have cheap Capitec is there wasn't competition.

If you have a problem with "investment banking" fine, I have a problem with them too. I think that derivative trading and other such made up concepts and stuff like trading debt seems/sounds very risky and perhaps should be more regulated.
 
supersunbird said:
If you have a problem with "investment banking" fine, I have a problem with them too. I think that derivative trading and other such made up concepts and stuff like trading debt seems/sounds very risky and perhaps should be more regulated.
Click to expand...
Well said on retail banking.

Supersunbird, I know where your problems with investment banking come from, and I agree with the sentiment. However, we've had investment banking and derivatives for ages. The current lunacy with derivatives is only made possible because of government inteference in the market. Very briefly, this distortion of the real market is made possible by a two-step government intervention: first, governments 'guaranteed' deposits at ordinary commercial banks (a bad move in the view of many serious economists, including a few Nobel laureates), then secondly, these guarantees were progressively elided under cover of common ownership and government legislation into covering derivatives-based bonds, thereby interfering with the true risk inherent in derivatives and permitting recklessness in the belief that there was a government back-stop. In the USA, the Big Obama Bailouts, QE and nationalisation of Freddy and Fannie just affirmed that governments will use public money to bail out their buddies in Wall St, an utter betrayal of good government, sound economics, and the free market. It gets even worse than you think with the MF Golbal fiasco at CME -- all made possible by government, or more precisely, robbers and thieves with government protection. This never happened - and cannot happen - in a genuinely free market.

For a grassroots perspective from the trenches, from a small-time commodity broker on the CME, who shut down her business late last year on moral grounds (because of government-backed thievery around the MF Global collapse), take a listen to Ann Barnhardt. She's a feisty lady.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X