# critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

I've had quite a lot of people telling me lately about how banks "create money out of nothing", how the federal reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" and other such nonsense. Now I know this is a load of bollocks but I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on. (The least mental lot I've come across putting this stuff out have been a group called "Positive Money" but their theories are just a re-heated version of the Zeitgeist nonsense).

A slightly less mental, but I think equally incorrect, version says that interest is the reason why our economy requires year on year compound growth. Even some otherwise clued up commentators appear to believe this. I know it's bollocks too, and I am just about able to explain why capitalism requires this regardless of usury. But I'm not all that patient and can't generally be arsed to write out an essay or make a 10 minute speech every time I come across it (especially as it would be so badly written that nobody would bother reading/listening to it).

So I was wondering, does anyone know of a decent (preferrably Marxist, since I think Marx's theories explain why compound growth is essential for capitalism better than any other) critique of this crackpot shit? And if not does anyone have the patience/knowledge to write one out? Ideally I'd like something I can either link to, C&P or print out and give to people when I encounter this.

And is anyone else coming across this stuff more and more, even from people who really should know better?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 25, 2012)

yes


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 25, 2012)

try this, refutation by a Marxist organisation (even if a fairly unorthodox one in terms of day-to-day practice)


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2012)

Goldman Sachs are cunts tbf


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

It's perfectly possible to agree that goldman sachs are cunts without swallowing a load of reality-free conspiracy theories.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've had quite a lot of people telling me lately about how banks "create money out of nothing", how the federal reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" and other such nonsense.


thing is, that in essence they're on the right track with this, although they don't quite create it from nothing, as they have to hold a certain percentage reserves relative to everything they lend out, but they're not too far off really.

At a fractional reserve rate of 20%, the commercial banking system can multiply the money loaned / given to it by the national bank 5 fold.

ie central bank loans commercial banks £1 billion, that eventually equates to £5 billion of loans being made into the economy.

erm, something like that anyway, it's a bit late for this sort of stuff.

Wiki seems to have a reasonable overview of this, from a quick scim read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

free spirit said:


> thing is, that in essence they're on the right track with this, although they don't quite create it from nothing, as they have to hold a certain percentage reserves relative to everything they lend out, but they're not too far off really.
> 
> At a fractional reserve rate of 20%, the commercial banking system can multiply the money loaned / given to it by the national bank 5 fold.
> 
> ...


 
But the reality is it's not some grand "conspiracy" - they're doing it to meet the demand required for the necessary velocity of circulation to keep the system going. And they're not just magicking wealth into being to enrich themselves - if the money isn't repaid they have to cover it - hence the financial crisis. It would probably help to look at the Zeitgeist thing to see what it is I'm criticising here but I'm not posting it on here cos it's fucking mental.

These fruitbats think that bankers can just create money to make them (or at least their banks) rich, when in reality all they make is the interest, and even that only if the money is repaid.

The reason why I have a problem with this is 1) banks really are ripping us off, but if people are using wanky arguments like this it's a whole lot easier for apologists to claim all critics are just mental conspiracy theorists and 2) it gives the impression that banks are _the problem_, rather than a mere symptom.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> But the reality is it's not some grand "conspiracy" - they're doing it to meet the demand required for the necessary velocity of circulation to keep the system going. And they're not just magicking wealth into being to enrich themselves - if the money isn't repaid they have to cover it - hence the financial crisis.


hmm... well you'd think so, but the last 4 years sort of give the lie to that, as it turns out the banks mostly don't have to cover it if the shit hits the fan, as they're too big to fail, so governments will either borrow the money or create the money to recapitalise the banks as required.

So in effect they have magicked up the money, made themselves horrendously rich off it, then left the rest of us to cover their debts when it went tits up.



SpineyNorman said:


> It would probably help to look at the Zeitgeist thing to see what it is I'm criticising here but I'm not posting it on here cos it's fucking mental.


I've checked it out before.



SpineyNorman said:


> These fruitbats think that bankers can just create money to make them (or at least their banks) rich, when in reality all they make is the interest, and even that only if the money is repaid.


it's actually a lot more complex than that, eg a lot of this extra money they pump into the economy from the fractional reserve banking thing basically ends up back in their hands being invested in whatever the next big investment bubble is, and essentially causing the investment bubble as all that extra cash in the economy has to end up somewhere... so the banks make loads of cash in the boom times from these bubbles, maybe 40-50% of the profits of which seem to end up in bankers pay and bonusses, and then when the inevitable crash happens they mostly also make shedloads of cash on the way down through short selling etc while the smaller investers just end up losing the lot.

So yes it's more complex than just the bankers creating money to make them rich, but essentially that is the net impact over the cycle.



SpineyNorman said:


> The reason why I have a problem with this is 1) banks really are ripping us off, but if people are using wanky arguments like this it's a whole lot easier for apologists to claim all critics are just mental conspiracy theorists and 2) it gives the impression that banks are _the problem_, rather than a mere symptom.


deregulated banks are a huge part of the problem - it's why they had to regulate the banks after the great depression, and it's no coincidence that we're getting such rapid transfers of wealth happening now, and such a rapid series of huge investment bubbles growing and bursting after the governments undid most of that regulation.

On another tack, the major reason for the stock market gains and the growth of the city and city pay and bonusses through the 80's, and 90s in the UK was the recycling of north sea oil money through to the city. The contraction of the UK money supply resulting from the reduction in North Sea oil and gas outputs, and the increased balance of trade deficits this is causing, is IMO the primary UK cause of the credit crunch, and the reason the BoE keeps having to release hundreds of billions into the banking system.

erm anyway, it's far too late for me to string a coherent argument together. I agree that the Zeitgeist lot either haven't entirely got it right, or aren't very good at putting it across properly, but there is a fair amount of truth to what they're saying.

btw - I doubt Marx is going to have covered this properly as a lot of the mechanisms for the banking system to act in this way wouldn't have existed back then, certainly not to the extent they do now where the data processing / IT developments mean that money can be created and traded around the world in the blink of an eye.

Worth doing some more reading into anyway IMO - I'm sure I've only scratched the surface of understanding how it all works, but enough to know that the deregulated bankers and their ultra-rich backers are essentially robbing us blind, and causing most of the catastrophic boom and bust investment bubbles in the process.

ps - looks like I was out of date with my 40-50% of bank profits going to the bankers


> The part represented by payroll has on average gone up from 58 per cent in 2006 to 84 per cent last year.


[ft]


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2012)

as for conspiracy... well the bankers certainly conspired to get the regulations relaxed which then enabled them to get themselves into this seriously lucrative position at the expense of economic stability for the wider economy, and the increasing concentration of wealth in their hands.

whether or not they actually understood what they were conspiring to do, or were just wanting to get rid of the regulatory burdens they felt were holding them back is a bit less clear. I'd tend to think they quite possibly didn't really understand what it was they were doing, just as they mostly probably don't really understand what they're doing now, although some must.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

I agree with pretty much all of that. But that's just the system doing what the system does and they're trying to say that it's when the money is created that the theft takes place, when it's through interest, investments, state bail-outs etc that they really get fat, not through magicking money out of thin air.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2012)

its always two steps from pinning the woes of the world on Jews.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> its always two steps from pinning the woes of the world on Jews.


 
We are so very pesky.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree with pretty much all of that. But that's just the system doing what the system does and they're trying to say that it's when the money is created that the theft takes place, when it's through interest, investments, state bail-outs etc that they really get fat, not through magicking money out of thin air.


ah, well that'd be where I'd have to differ with them as well then.

tbh I didn't get that far with the Zeitgeist stuff before deciding that it seemed to not make a vast amount of sense myself, and can't entirely remember what their take on it was. TBF, it probably was partly in looking into the stuff they were on about that I felt the need to do some research into how all this actually did work, and tbh I reckon that's probably worse than the Zeitgeist lots concerns.

bed calls now though.


----------



## love detective (Jun 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've had quite a lot of people telling me lately about how banks "create money out of nothing", how the federal reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" and other such nonsense. Now I know this is a load of bollocks but I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on. (The least mental lot I've come across putting this stuff out have been a group called "Positive Money" but their theories are just a re-heated version of the Zeitgeist nonsense).
> 
> A slightly less mental, but I think equally incorrect, version says that interest is the reason why our economy requires year on year compound growth. Even some otherwise clued up commentators appear to believe this. I know it's bollocks too, and I am just about able to explain why capitalism requires this regardless of usury. But I'm not all that patient and can't generally be arsed to write out an essay or make a 10 minute speech every time I come across it (especially as it would be so badly written that nobody would bother reading/listening to it).
> 
> ...


 
There's been quite a lot of threads on here recently where these kind of discussions have been had (in painstaking detail)

The bulk of this thread (from about post 8 onwards) pretty much concentrated on it from post 8 onwards - including dispelling the myth (for the hundredth time) that fractional reserve lending is creating money out of thin air so might be of some use to you

Also this, this, this, this and this might be useful but may also make your eyes bleed


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 25, 2012)

free spirit said:


> thing is, that in essence they're on the right track with this, although they don't quite create it from nothing, as they have to hold a certain percentage reserves relative to everything they lend out, but they're not too far off really.
> 
> At a fractional reserve rate of 20%, the commercial banking system can multiply the money loaned / given to it by the national bank 5 fold.
> 
> ...



This is merely due to the fact that money circulates though, i.e. leaves a "trace" of value as it passes hands.


----------



## cypher79 (Jun 25, 2012)

Creating money from nothing is legalized fraud. This is the reason that currencies are holding less and less value and also the main reason the economies are getting so bad.


----------



## ayatollah (Jun 25, 2012)

It is impossible to venture very far on the blogosphere nowadays without coming across the hordes of "end fractional banking - back to the gold standard" enthusiasts its true. without getting into all the complexities of the role of finance capital in facilitating the operations of a capitalist system,there does appear to have been one of those significant "quantity into quality" developments so beloved of Dialectical Materialism" enthusiasts , with the operation and impact of Finance Capital on a World scale over the last 30 years or so. Through that old favourite, the process of monopoly development , in this case into banking enterprises whose operations and turnovers dwarf most national governments, and parallel with this the domination of key national governments and international institutions, through placemen and widespread corruption of the legislative processes. Finance Capital seems now to be rampaging through the capitalist system in an almost "cancerous" manner, destroying the very system it should function to facilitate and support. Hard to see how, given Finance Capital's control of the US government and other key governments, that this rampaging monster can be brought back under control within the "normal" operations of capitalism.

There was an illuminating comment by the dreadful ex IMF head , Strauss Kahn, on one of the exellent Al Jazeera "Meltdown" documentaries. Apparently at the critical point during the great 2008 Crash when the whole system appeared to be about topple, some of the top world bankers wailed to Strauss Kahn " you shouldn't have let us operate with so little regulation .. you know what we're like". Strauss Kahn then recounted that a month later, when the banks were safely in public bail out mode, he met these same bankers again -- and they seemed to have no recollection of their earlier contrition !


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

cypher79 said:


> Creating money from nothing is legalized fraud. This is the reason that currencies are holding less and less value and also the main reason the economies are getting so bad.


 
This is the kind of nonsense argument I'm talking about.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 25, 2012)

love detective said:


> There's been quite a lot of threads on here recently where these kind of discussions have been had (in painstaking detail)
> 
> The bulk of this thread (from about post 8 onwards) pretty much concentrated on it from post 8 onwards - including dispelling the myth (for the hundredth time) that fractional reserve lending is creating money out of thin air so might be of some use to you
> 
> Also this, this, this, this and this might be useful but may also make your eyes bleed


 
Thanks mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Easy:



> But the quantity of money in circulation is, as we have seen, determined not only by the sum of commodity-prices to be realised, but also by the velocity with which money circulates, i.e., the speed with which this realisation of prices is accomplished during a given period. If in one day one and the same sovereign makes ten purchases each consisting of a commodity worth one sovereign, so that it changes hands ten times, it transacts the same amount of business as ten sovereigns each of which makes only one circuit a day. [3] The velocity of circulation of gold can thus make up for its quantity: in other words, the stock of gold in circulation is determined not only by gold functioning as an equivalent alongside commodities, but also by the function it fulfils in the movement of the metamorphoses of commodities. But the velocity of currency can make up for its quantity only to a certain extent, for an endless number of separate purchases and sales take place simultaneously at any given moment.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Goldman Sachs are cunts tbf


 
The dirty Jew lizard bastards!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> We are so very pesky.


 
It's why She made us so disputatious.


----------



## elbows (Jun 25, 2012)

I once photoshopped the poster below to put Max Keisers face on McKinley, and sent it to him. He published it as I don't think he knew I was taking the piss


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 25, 2012)

For anyone with an interest in these ideas I strongly recommend 'Surviving Progress'.  A 90 minute documentary that was on BB4 reciently (and again on soon HD I think).

http://survivingprogress.com/

The film covers lots of ground but encompasses the negative effects of progress, or where human ingenuity creates systems which inevitably have negative consequences and often results in system collapse.  The more complex and interconnected the system the greater and bigger the crash.

The progress trap of unrestrained capitalism is explored and how this is destroying human life support systems is examined.  Or to put into the context of this thread how the interest on loans is being repaid by destruction of our natural habitat.

But the film is so much more than how I describe it.  It reminds me a little of Adam Davies Curtis documentaries where lots of threads of thought are put together in a coherent whole.


----------



## elbows (Jun 25, 2012)

I hope it does a better job than Adam Curtis because putting things together is where he goes horribly wrong, with grotesquely oversimplified narratives and massive errors about peoples motivations and levels of naivety. And I say that as someone who really likes some of the details he brings to the viewers attention, just not the way he weaves it into tall story.


----------



## magneze (Jun 25, 2012)

^ It's very good. Well worth watching.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

Debt Generation by David Malone explains how it all works in very simple terms that addresses how money is really made in a way that could I think convert some of the more lucid conspiraloons, especially as the bloke initially seems like one of them (he's not though), and he is not a lefty either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

What do you/he mean 'really made' though?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What do you/he mean 'really made' though?


 
As far as I remember he talks about how securities are generated and circulate - based on prime or sub-prime loans - and then traded in a really easy to understand way, a bit like Mason in Meltdown only even simpler imo - but the point he makes is about how that happens or happened seperatly to the circulation of actual money.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 25, 2012)

elbows said:


> I hope it does a better job than Adam Curtis because putting things together is where he goes horribly wrong, with grotesquely oversimplified narratives and massive errors about peoples motivations and levels of naivety. And I say that as someone who really likes some of the details he brings to the viewers attention, just not the way he weaves it into tall story.


 
With Adam Curtis I sometimes feel I have some kind of conceptual vertigo - the ideas are so diverse you have to leap from one to the other.  Surviving Progress was different in that respect.  It has some talking heads as well to underline ideas - Margaret Atwood for instance.

If you decide to watch it you can thank me afterwards for bringing it to your attention!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Hmmm.


----------



## elbows (Jun 25, 2012)

fredfelt said:


> With Adam Curtis I sometimes feel I have some kind of conceptual vertigo - the ideas are so diverse you have to leap from one to the other. Surviving Progress was different in that respect. It has some talking heads as well to underline ideas - Margaret Atwood for instance.
> 
> If you decide to watch it you can thank me afterwards for bringing it to your attention!


 
I don't mind leaping from one diverse idea to another, its trying to construct false bridges between them that I have a problem with.

I will watch Surviving Progress and I thank you for bringing it to my attention, although having glanced at a review I expect it will end badly. Apparently it goes all apocalyptic at the end but then suggests we could be saved by the internet. I have played with such ideas myself on this here forum from time to time, but I expect its rather easy to overstate the potential for either in a rather absurd way, so I expect to groan.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 25, 2012)

cypher79 said:


> capitalism is legalized fraud. This is the reason that currencies are holding less and less value and also the main reason the economies are getting so bad.


 
corrected for you so it makes sense.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2012)

fredfelt said:


> For anyone with an interest in these ideas I strongly recommend 'Surviving Progress'. A 90 minute documentary that was on BB4 reciently (and again on soon HD I think).
> 
> http://survivingprogress.com/
> 
> ...


 
Interest on loans is being repaid by the destruction of the natural habitat? Well I suppose it is but - and I might have misunderstood if so I apologise - that seems to imply that interest is the root cause. I reckon if we could somehow make capitalism work without interest the pace of the destruction of the environment wouldn't reduce at all. I'll give it a watch before I say it's shit though!


----------



## elbows (Jun 26, 2012)

It might be better to look at broader questions such as 'why does capitalism require growth?' than try to deal directly with questions of interest, currency, money or banking. A lot of the people who get obsessed with banking, currency or money don't seem to have the first clue what money actually is, or what role it serves. The velocity of money doesn't seem to mean anything to them, and they want to obsess over the tokens used rather than economic activity, value, investment, return on investment and ownership/control.

And when it comes to interest rates, I would think that years of low inflation in many countries has further reduced the chances of people looking at the issues from all the required angles.

I would certainly love to be able to give a reasonable overview of things in a couple of short paragraphs , but as you can probably tell Im not capable yet. We need to be able to though, as I only see the stakes getting higher in the years to come, and if loads of people don't get it then we're in a lot of trouble.


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 26, 2012)

elbows said:


> I don't mind leaping from one diverse idea to another, its trying to construct false bridges between them that I have a problem with.
> 
> I will watch Surviving Progress and I thank you for bringing it to my attention, although having glanced at a review I expect it will end badly. Apparently it goes all apocalyptic at the end but then suggests we could be saved by the internet. I have played with such ideas myself on this here forum from time to time, but I expect its rather easy to overstate the potential for either in a rather absurd way, so I expect to groan.


 
It tried to be upbeat at the end of the film, but that line of enquiry was clearly embedded in the theme of the film - 'the progress trap'.  So the implication was that we may well extend the system and make it more complex but we are just setting ourselves up for a bigger system collapse.

I found the discussion's of jubilee debt cancellation fascinating.  When debt has been owned by the state it's been possible to maintain economic systems by the government cancelling debt.  With historical examples it explained how jubilee's are only possible when the state owns the debt, but also examined the unintended consequences of debt cancellation - and how the collapse of the fertility of the arable land of Italy and falling productivity lead to the collapse of the Roman empire.

Moving to today we have our financial institutions owned by an oligarchy - the indebted countries have to mortgage / sell their their natural resources to the West to repay their debt - or at least keep on top of interest payments.  And as the financial institutions keep the cash rolling in they can keep on giving out the loans. 

The film makers portrayed the fall of the Roman empire in terms of the current 'credit crunch'.  Any 'loon theories' offering critiques our current financial systems are backed up with human experience and previous collapses of empires.  If anyone's interested I found an essay comparing the collapse of the Roman empire to where we are today http://www.safehaven.com/article/17839/no-august-surprise-just-a-modern-day-jubilee-debt-collapse


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

That text - the historical parts - is plagiarised, literally, just copied from the work of William Stearns Davis - which is sort of like mistaking Barbara Cartland for a worthwhile historian of the 20th century. He made stuff up! This is _fiction_:




> A description of the panic reads like one of our own times: The important firm of Seuthes and Son, of Alexandria (read Bear Stearns), was facing difficulties because of the loss of three richly laden ships in a Red Sea storm, followed by a fall in the value of ostrich feather and ivory (fall in the value of real estate). About the same time the great house of Malchus and Co. of Tyre (Lehman Bros.) with branches at Antioch and Ephesus, suddenly became bankrupt as a result of a strike among their Phoenician workmen (unions) and the embezzlements of a freedman manager (Madoff). These failures affected the Roman banking house, Quintus Maximus and Lucius Vibo (Goldman, Merrill, JP Morgan, etc.). A run commenced on their bank and spread to other banking houses that were said to be involved, particularly the Brothers Pittius (Wells Fargo, etc.).


----------



## fredfelt (Jun 26, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That text - the historical parts - is plagiarised, literally, just copied from the work of William Stearns Davis - which is sort of like mistaking Barbara Cartland for a worthwhile historian of the 20th century. He made stuff up! This is _fiction_:


 
Hmm.  Is there anything you'd recommend along those lines?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2012)

The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

Apparently, much of the freemen, conspiraloon, zeitgeist, occupy, etc fraternity are now going on about Agenda 21 being a new global conspiracy, A21 could have been a very positive development from Rio 92: lots of environmentalists effectively used its localist approch to make demnands on councils, etc, where do they get these ideas from...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

Btw, you can download the book i mentioned above from here (pdf warning) - save yourself 35 quid.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently, much of the freemen, conspiraloon, zeitgeist, occupy, etc fraternity are now going on about Agenda 21 being a new global conspiracy, A21 could have been a very positive development from Rio 92: lots of environmentalists effectively used its localist approch to make demnands on councils, etc, where do they get these ideas from...


 
You do know that 21 is a triangle number don't you?






And you know what triangles look like? PYRAMIDS!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!


----------



## TruXta (Mar 22, 2013)

Look like pizza slices to me


----------



## kabbes (Mar 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So I was wondering, does anyone know of a decent (preferrably Marxist, since I think Marx's theories explain why compound growth is essential for capitalism better than any other) critique of this crackpot shit? And if not does anyone have the patience/knowledge to write one out? Ideally I'd like something I can either link to, C&P or print out and give to people when I encounter this.


 
I've had a quick look through and I don't think this question has actually been answered.

Capitalism is about the owners of capital investing that capital, right?  That's what it means.  You have capital, you put it to work.

These days, the effect of that is expressed in terms of "return on capital" (RoC).  If you make £10 profit from a venture that you have £100 of capital invested in, your RoC is 10%.

Required RoC is risk-based.  Ventures more likely to return nothing, or to destroy your capital, have higher RoC targets.

All of this is embedded into our various investment systems, but it is all fundamental to capitalism.  Sometimes it is about shareholders, in which the capital amounts to the net asset value of the enterprise that shares are bought in.  Sometimes it is more direct, such a venture capitalism.  But it all comes down to somebody owning capital and needing profit.

So we invest our £100 of capital and get £10 RoC.  What do we do with that £10?  From an investment perspective: we invest it.  We need to find something else to invest £10 of capital in, that £10 also needs 10% RoC.  And so it goes.

It's the requirement for RoC that drives the need for growth, then.  It's nothing to do with fractional banking, which is just greasing the wheels of this capital investment.  It's the capital investment itself that is doing it.  The whole system relies on the idea that people will own capital and put that capital to work and that their incentive for doing this is a return.  But that return _is_ growth.  The result is that capitalism requires growth.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

"I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on."


Systemic fraud. 
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/07/19/ritholtz-a-concise-list-recent-bank-fraud/

It's all very well to call some of these people "loons", some being more loon than others. But the phenomena is built on deliberate mass ignorance. When people find out they don't know what's going on they may well be too keen to swallow the first counter-establishment narrative, but it is the criminal and psychopathic establishment that pushes them that way.

And it takes quite severe lunacy to prop up a system which created many 100s of trillions of dollars in derivatives, to the extent that we will never get out of debt to the fraudsters without the kind of debt jubilee that was quite typical in older civilisations. This lunacy is the norm via mainstream media and politics, it is the far far greater issue.

These people launder money for terrorists and other mass murderers. The idea they didn't know they were is absurd. 

Critique of varying shades of loon is fine, but lets not forget who caused the crisis and gains from it at the same time. 

One last thing, fractional reserve does facilitate creation of money "from thin air". The clue is in the word "fraction". It's predicated on the generality that not everyone asks for their money back at once. It serves some useful functions but it has got way out of hand via such practices as re-hypothication.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

How about a more general critique of capitalism, not just one part of it? Do you think the bankers and banks are the only ones to gain from the crisis and the only ones responsible for it?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

One more thing : Cyprus shows (as did argentina) that the IMF can and will collude with governments to steal money direct from bank accounts (also happened at a private level with the MF Global Scandal)

That's not lunacy to say so. It's what they do. It is the principal in practice that all private property is subject to sequestration by the state to hand over to private corporations at will. There's a word for that kind of government isn't there?

ETA: In Argentina, the money was stolen via changing dollar savings into Argentine currency savings at a stroke, same denomination.


----------



## Random (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a word for that kind of government isn't there?


 "Government"?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

> That's not lunacy to say so. It's what they do. It is the principal in practice that all private property is subject to sequestration by the state to hand over to private corporations at will. There's a word for that kind of government isn't there?


 
yes, it's called the capitalist state.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How about a more general critique of capitalism, not just one part of it? Do you think the bankers and banks are the only ones to gain from the crisis and the only ones responsible for it?



I can and do critique capitalism generally. But, while I am reliably informed that my distinction is "bourgeois", I see the current crisis as more detrimental and far more a product of finance capital than of industrial capital. 

In fact, one reason for downturn in production of real things is that making real things is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing "money" these days as compared to chucking numbers around on a screen and indulging in a range of self serving finance frauds.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yes, it's called the capitalist state.



Would you call that synonymous with "state capitalism"?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yes, it's called the capitalist state.


Or the democratic state, the fascist state, the Communist state, the socialist state, the workers state, the islamic republican state and so on. taffboy thinks it only means fascist state i suspect.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Would you call that synonymous with "state capitalism"?


Of course not - there are many forms of capitalist state. What do you mean by state-capitalism anyway?


----------



## Firky (Mar 22, 2013)

Random said:


> "Government"?


 
I think you just served a "pwned" as the internet would say.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I can and do critique capitalism generally. But, while I am reliably informed that my distinction is "bourgeois", I see the current crisis as more detrimental and far more a product of finance capital than of industrial capital.
> 
> In fact, one reason for downturn in production of real things is that making real things is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing "money" these days as compared to chucking numbers around on a screen and indulging in a range of self serving finance frauds.


I have never seen you off a critique of capitalism generally. Or even specifically, in fact i've never seen you indicate what you even think constitutes capitalism.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

case in point - moldova and i suspect anywhere in the former soviet block, where people owning small businesses have had them confiscated and sold off to the mates of people in the government. the "communist" party did this (post 1995) btw. no conspiracy just gangsterism and the increased fact that the state in those regions is more and more intertwined with the interests of organised crime (although to be fair property confiscation of entirely innocent people by the state could happen anywhere)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Would you call that synonymous with "state capitalism"?


 
No I wouldn't. Not necessarily.


----------



## Random (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No I wouldn't. Not necessarily.


Ok, you survive another day in the Socialist Party. Just one!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on."
> 
> 
> Systemic fraud.
> ...


 
Here's a tip - if you're trying to persuade people that proponents of loon theories aren't loons it's probably not a good idea to then link to Max Keiser propounding loon theories


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In fact, one reason for downturn in production of real things is that making real things is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing "money" these days as compared to chucking numbers around on a screen and indulging in a range of self serving finance frauds.


 
This is demonstrable nonsense. You've got it completely back to front. _Why _did people start engaging in obviously dodgy and unsustainable financial practices? Why now, and not before?


----------



## Random (Mar 22, 2013)

One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political  group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is demonstrable nonsense. You've got it completely back to front. _Why _did people start engaging in obviously dodgy and unsustainable financial practices? Why now, and not before?


 Heard of "light touch regulation"? It was quite well known among watchers of "current affairs".

Of course the premise isn't bollocks. It's less cumbersome and inefficient to invest via "exotic instruments" in a market that may well be rigged to your favour than to bother with all the financial friction involved in cumbersome old actual production of actual things.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Heard of "light touch regulation"? It was quite well known among watchers of "current affairs".
> 
> Of course the premise isn't bollocks. It's less cumbersome and inefficient to invest via "exotic instruments" in a market that may well be rigged to your favour than to bother with all the financial friction involved in cumbersome old actual production of actual things.


 
And why was light touch regulation introduced? Why then and not before?

We'll get there in the end.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One last thing, fractional reserve does facilitate creation of money "from thin air". The clue is in the word "fraction". It's predicated on the generality that not everyone asks for their money back at once. It serves some useful functions but it has got way out of hand via such practices as re-hypothication.


 
Nooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Here's a tip - if you're trying to persuade people that proponents of loon theories aren't loons it's probably not a good idea to then link to Max Keiser propounding loon theories



Which loon theories are you talking about? That link is well sourced and comprehensive. You were honest enough to say that you don't understand the system fully enough. Max Keiser appears to understand it very well, and he is quite far from the type of loon that you are having a go at.

This frankly appears to be another "lets slag off conspiracy theories because we know better and they think they know better" threads. It's possible that neither side doesn't fully know better. That the "truth", whatever that may be and however it may be discerned, is more nuanced.

But one thing is very plain, and I hope we can agree on it. The prime current function of government is to attribute public monies (via taxes) that are generally understood to be for services, to finance insitutions to cover bailouts, the effects of QE etc. Such institutions are riddled with fraud and have indulged in such practice as money laundering for a variety of mass murderers.

The system is criminal and psychopathic. What is needed among sincere opponents is sincere discussion, patience and respect, not name-calling and one-upman jibes. I've seen plenty of shit coming the other way of course, I don't hold one side responsible. For example, it's a standard enough conspiracist orthodoxy to think that all of this is a Marxist plot. A whole generation of neoliberalism = Marxist. Utter fucking manure, it's hard not to deride such positions but the less derisive one is, the more chance one may have of brining people round.

I often think the raw vitriol in these exchanges is directly related to an impotent but understandable rage of those taking part. It's also very ego and testosterone fuelled. Though I am not above and beyond it myself, it generally tends to "sound and fury, signifying nothing"


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Random said:


> One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.


 
I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser. 
I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Which loon theories are you talking about? That link is well sourced and comprehensive. You were honest enough to say that you don't understand the system fully enough. Max Keiser appears to understand it very well, and he is quite far from the type of loon that you are having a go at.


 
He's a complete and utter fucking loon. He does alien impressions on what's supposed to be a current affairs program for fuck's sake. And I types the OP nearly a year ago - since then I've done what all serious people do when they don't understand something - I've gone away and learned more about it.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This frankly appears to be another "lets slag off conspiracy theories because we know better and they think they know better" threads. It's possible that neither side doesn't fully know better. That the "truth", whatever that may be and however it may be discerned, is more nuanced.


 
Nope, it's a let's critique misleading, superficial and incorrect theories.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> But one thing is very plain, and I hope we can agree on it. The prime current function of government is to attribute public monies (via taxes) that are generally understood to be for services, to finance insitutions to cover bailouts, the effects of QE etc. Such institutions are riddled with fraud and have indulged in such practice as money laundering for a variety of mass murderers.


 
Where we differ is that you seem to think this is something new.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The system is criminal and psychopathic. What is needed among sincere opponents is sincere discussion, patience and respect, not name-calling and one-upman jibes. I've seen plenty of shit coming the other way of course, I don't hold one side responsible. For example, it's a standard enough conspiracist orthodoxy to think that all of this is a Marxist plot. A whole generation of neoliberalism = Marxist. Utter fucking manure, it's hard not to deride such positions but the less derisive one is, the more chance one may have of brining people round.


 
You're not really saying anything here.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I often think the raw vitriol in these exchanges is directly related to an impotent but understandable rage of those taking part.


 
Speak for yourself.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It's also very ego and testosterone fuelled. Though I am not above and beyond it myself, it generally tends to "sound and fury, signifying nothing"


 
As above.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser.
> I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?



I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.

He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left. 

He is a big advocate of gold and silver, especially of buying silver as a means to screw up JP Morgan via their overweighted short position.

He predicted the derivatives catastrophe at least as far back as 2005. He predicted the Iceland debacle some way ahead of time. He covers a huge range of topics I never hear discussed elsewhere, though they probably are in more niche areas of financial interest. 

He has a certain flamboyant ranty style that annoys some people, but attracts others. I am in the latter. Aside from perhaps David Harvey, I have learned more about economics from him than anyone else. If you want to call out the fraud for what it is, he is invaluable.

Latest show is here, on Cyprus mostly, but some interesting things about tech stuff toward the end. Very good edition.

!

He first came to my attention in late 2008 for his "Goldman Sachs Are Scum" rant 




As for Russia Today, I find it superior on many matters not pertaining to Russia. It loves to take the piss out of the UK and US, so is a useful slant to draw on.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2013)

Random said:


> One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.


 
You can combine the two, I guess. I noticed this on the Sheffield SWSS facebook page today:


I am officially declaring myself under a state of lawful revolution under article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 AD
A.R.F

Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our UK Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us a...nd this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.

[History of Magna Carta]
Magna Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous foreign policy and overzealous financial administration. John had suffered a staggering blow the previous year, having lost an important battle to King Philip II at Bouvines and with it all hope of regaining the French lands he had inherited. When the defeated John returned from the Continent, he attempted to rebuild his coffers by demanding scutage (a fee paid in lieu of military service) from the barons who had not joined his war with Philip.
[End of history]

Our entire political and legal system is now acting in violation of these rights, article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional Law.
This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.

Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;
(o) Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
(o) Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
(o) To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breached the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.

Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this allows for. The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken.

In order to detach yourself from society, it is vitally important that you have officially revoked the your consent to be governed and have entered into lawful rebellion.
We all know that should a significant portion of us manage successfully to live outside their system that the government will seek to regain control over us by any means it deems necessary and it will quote law (statute law) to justify itself.
For those who have revoked their consent to be governed according to article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 there can be no such justification, it would be like a store manager of Tesco's trying to enforce a company rule from the employee's handbook on a passing Traffic Warden, however, if you do happen to work for Tesco's then those rules are law and Tesco's can insist that you follow them or take action against you.
Similarly, if you have not officially entered into lawful rebellion then the government will demand that you conform to its rules and feel justified in taking action against you if you do not follow them.

To officially enter into a state of lawful rebellion send this letter guaranteed and recorded delivery to:

Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA 

[Letter]

1st line of address
2nd line of address
Town
County
Postcode
[Date of postage]

Madam

I am [first name] of the family [surname], It upsets me to inform you that I can no longer accept being governed in direct violation of the common law rights.
As this is the case I am asking you under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215AD to remedy this situation and return us to a state of common law in our legal system and to remove the politicians that are directly violating common law by allowing and passing acts under the pretence of law in this country.
I respectfully state that if this matter is not corrected in 40 days, the time limit set down by Article 61, then it is my legal duty as a freeman in this country to enter into a state of lawful rebellion.
I hope this matter can be resolved and I humbly request that all correspondence related to this matter be made in writing to the address marked at the top of this letter only.

With respect and the honour of England
[First name] of the family [Surname]See more


----------



## J Ed (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.
> 
> He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left.


 
Can't help but think that the rise of people like this and the 'libertarian' movement in general is a way of diverting opposition to neoliberalism into an ideology which allows it to flourish.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 22, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Can't help but think that the rise of people like this and the 'libertarian' movement in general is a way of diverting opposition to neoliberalism into an ideology which allows it to flourish.



I think that type of person is certainly not in short supply, but that MK isn't especially one of them. He supports good and strong regulation, he supports UK Uncut and other similar organisations. Libertarians who think he is on their side are making a mistake, even if they share a critique of fiat currency.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think that type of person is certainly not in short supply, but that MK isn't especially one of them. He supports good and strong regulation, he supports UK Uncut and other similar organisations. Libertarians who think he is on their side are making a mistake, even if they share a critique of fiat currency.


 
He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser.
> I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?


 
i'd like to know more about him too.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs


 
lots of conspiracy types are.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> case in point - moldova and i suspect anywhere in the former soviet block, where people owning small businesses have had them confiscated and sold off to the mates of people in the government. the "communist" party did this (post 1995) btw. no conspiracy just gangsterism and the increased fact that the state in those regions is more and more intertwined with the interests of organised crime (although to be fair property confiscation of entirely innocent people by the state could happen anywhere)


 
Lots like that in McMafia, which documents how globalisation has led to globalised crime..


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lots like that in McMafia, which documents how globalisation has led to globalised crime..


 
that's a great book.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I can and do critique capitalism generally.


 
Since you don't seem especially keen on addressing my other posts let's try another angle. What is your general critique of capitalism?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

> As for Russia Today, I find it superior on many matters *not pertaining to Russia.*


 
Of course you do.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He has a certain flamboyant ranty style that annoys some people, but attracts others. I am in the latter. Aside from perhaps David Harvey, I have learned more about economics from him than anyone else. If you want to call out the fraud for what it is, he is invaluable.


 
What have you learned from Harvey? What have you learned from Keiser? Why is the latter indispensable for me? There is a odd contradiction in your post here as well - Harvey doesn't really think 'fraud' plays any major role in the crisis, it plays a a small role among the repertoire of "accumulations by dispossession" that capital has adopted as a strategy since the mid-70s, it's essentially a by-product rather than a the key structural motivation -  whereas all this Keiser seems to see is the normal operations of as fraud, the crisis as fraud (but not his engaging in these same activities himself oddly enough - fraud fraud everywhere and can i be on your show i'll make lots of attention grabbing predictions and put your show across to a certain audience).


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2013)

J Ed said:


> You can combine the two, I guess. I noticed this on the Sheffield SWSS facebook page today:


So not just a loon but a massive bore too.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs



I expect he is on side with Nepotist Ron regarding The Fed and war, plenty are. I doubt he agrees with slashing food stamps by over 60% and all the other right wing shit. He frequently derides austerity. 

Remember, austerity is basically screwing the people in order to pay off the banks. Why such an immense critic of that crimewave would be keen to see them given more money is beyond me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I expect he is on side with Nepotist Ron regarding The Fed and war, plenty are. I doubt he agrees with slashing food stamps by over 60% and all the other right wing shit. He frequently derides austerity.
> 
> Remember, austerity is basically screwing the people in order to pay off the banks. Why such an immense critic of that crimewave would be keen to see them given more money is beyond me.


 
No, it's much more serious than that - austerity is screwing the people to save the system - the _capitalist _system. This what an absence of a wider critique of capitalism does - makes you focus on the symptoms rather than the disease.

In many ways Max Keiser is Russia Today's answer to Glen Beck. He's a ranting right wing populist who sometimes feigns left - we've seen people like that before.


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

This thread should be merged with my UK financial implosion one.  http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/do-we-need-a-uk-financial-implosion-thread.307885/ Plenty of Max Keiser over there. And a bit of Peter Oborne, who I'm told is another right wing loon. I like both of them, even though I am permanently in poverty.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, it's much more serious than that - austerity is screwing the people to save the system - the _capitalist _system. This what an absence of a wider critique of capitalism does - makes you focus on the symptoms rather than the disease.
> 
> In many ways Max Keiser is Russia Today's answer to Glen Beck. He's a ranting right wing populist who sometimes feigns left - we've seen people like that before.


a new movement against the bankers that goes beyond left and right.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This thread should be merged with my UK financial implosion one.  http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/do-we-need-a-uk-financial-implosion-thread.307885/ Plenty of Max Keiser over there. And a bit of Peter Oborne, who I'm told is another right wing loon. I like both of them, even though I am permanently in poverty.


 
Listen 'ere sunshine, if there's any merging to be done it'll be your thread getting merged with mine, mine's been here longer 

I wouldn't group Oborne with Keiser myself. Oborne is a right winger but he doesn't pretend to be anything else and does occasionally say something interesting. With Keiser it's always either stuff everyone knows anyway (we're getting shafted, oh noes!) or re-heated conspiracy theories. Where he's right he's not original, and where he's original he's not right.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

What is incredible is that some people see Keiser, Paul etc as anti-establishment figures. Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US (or was) with people who were into stuff like legalising cannabis etc, as an "alternative" candidate. Most of them probably weren't aware of his mad racism or his other political views.

Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!


----------



## JimW (Mar 23, 2013)

Mentioning David Harvey, watched a talk he gave at Warwick University the other day and he mentions the libertarian right being on to something in their criticism of the fed, in that were a "true" bourgeois democracy possible it would require democratic control over the issuing of money and the founding of fed in 1913 ended possibility of that. The relevant bit starts about 20 mins in, though Harvey is of course talking about how a capitalist state forms to protect permanent property rights by having a monopoly over violence and monopoly over money (so the dream of a "genuine" bourgeois democracy is a fantasy anyway, I presume; if not the fed, then monopoly by other means would be necessary). So seem to say that the libertarian right are on to something in so far as they've noticed the massive transfer in asset values from the poor to the rich in recent years in recent years, though obv not in how they interpret causes of that:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/events/distinguishedlecture/davidharvey/

Later talks about money as a store of value and asking about possible forms of money that could work as medium of circulation but not a store of value - "stamped money" is an example he gives that had a time limit, which he says would be easy to do with electronic money and have different social implications.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

JimW said:


> Mentioning David Harvey, watched a talk he gave at Warwick University the other day and he mentions the libertarian right being on to something in their criticism of the fed, in that were a "true" bourgeois democracy possible it would require democratic control over the issuing of money and the founding of fed in 1913 ended possibility of that. The relevant bit starts about 20 mins in, though Harvey is of course talking about how a capitalist state forms to protect permanent property rights by having a monopoly over violence and monopoly over money (so the dream of a "genuine" bourgeois democracy is a fantasy anyway, I presume; if not the fed, then monopoly by other means would be necessary). So seem to say that the libertarian right are on to something in so far as they've noticed the massive transfer in asset values from the poor to the rich in recent years in recent years, though obv not in how they interpret causes of that:
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/events/distinguishedlecture/davidharvey/
> 
> Later talks about money as a store of value and asking about possible forms of money that could work as medium of circulation but not a store of value - "stamped money" is an example he gives that had a time limit, which he says would be easy to do with electronic money and have different social implications.


 
Yeah this is sort of what I was getting at when I said that a lack of a systematic critique of capitalism leads you to focus on the symptoms rather than the disease. Unlike Harvey it appears that taffboy and Keiser believe that it's possible to have capitalism without this kind of stuff (it isn't).

However, I think this is where Harvey is at his weakest. He rejects the theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and so often ends up making underconsumptionist arguments that aren't that different from those of left keynesians (kind of like the Monthly Review). That's what the stamped money thing is all about, if it's the same arguments I've heard him making - it's about making it so money has to be spent because if it's hoarded it loses its value. Whereas if you recognise that all this shit ultimately stems from a crisis of the rate of profit that started to take effect in the 70s then deregulation, liberalisation, flexiblitisation of labour practices, privatisation, transfer of the tax burden from business to labour etc (neoliberalism) isn't some abberation brought in with the sole intention of making the rich richer at our expense, but rather a kind of hegemonic project aimed at sustaining the system despite the low rate of profit, by essentially using dodgy banking practices, state subsidies, low taxes, union busing etc to artificially raise after tax profits.

Rather than seeing it as some kind of conspiracy where the rich bankers sat down one day and plotted how they could get richer and enslave humanity, it was something they had to do (or at least they had to do something like this, something that would achieve similar ends - though it might have taken a different form if others had led it) if they were to keep the system in place.


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!


 
No, the production company which employs him is American.


----------



## JimW (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> ...
> 
> However, I think this is where Harvey is at his weakest. He rejects the theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and so often ends up making underconsumptionist arguments that aren't that different from those of left keynesians (kind of like the Monthly Review). That's what the stamped money thing is all about, if it's the same arguments I've heard him making - it's about making it so money has to be spent because if it's hoarded it loses its value.....


I might have been doing him a disservice throwing that in (it was something new to me so piqued the old interest); here at least he's more saying we need to be thinking about presenting possible alternatives and this is just one idea about how we might preserve the convenience of money as a medium of exchange while limiting its propensity to store accumulated social power. Feel like I should add "Man" at the end of that


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US


 I think you'll enjoy this piece about his son 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/rand-paul-republican-rising-star


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What is incredible is that some people see Keiser, Paul etc as anti-establishment figures. Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US (or was) with people who were into stuff like legalising cannabis etc, as an "alternative" candidate. Most of them probably weren't aware of his mad racism or his other political views.
> 
> Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!


 
This isn't an accident, a lot of money has been poured into organisations like the Cato Institute to legitimise the radical credentials of right libertarianism. A good example of the methods they use to cultivate this image is their choice of writers for their conferences and writers for their journal. While the donors to the Cato Institute would be horrified at the idea of implementing the economic policies advocated by, to take two examples, academic Marxist James C Scott and left-liberal Glenn Greenwald, they are more than happy to pay handsomely to use their names to promote the idea that their movement is anti-establishment.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> No, the production company which employs him is American.


 
Oh come on, they're subcontracted by Russia Today, Putin's state broadcaster. He knows what side his bread's buttered on - ever seen him criticise the Russian Kleptocracy/oligarchy? The American broadcast company wouldn't employ him if he was likely to go 'off message' would they? If you're interested in how this stuff fits together you could do worse than taking a look at some of Chomsky and Herman's stuff on the political economy of the mass media - video here - essay here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

J Ed said:


> This isn't an accident, a lot of money has been poured into organisations like the Cato Institute to legitimise the radical credentials of right libertarianism. A good example of the methods they use to cultivate this image is their choice of writers for their conferences and writers for their journal. While the donors to the Cato Institute would be horrified at the idea of implementing the economic policies advocated by, to take two examples, academic Marxist James C Scott and left-liberal Glenn Greenwald, they are more than happy to pay handsomely to use their names to promote the idea that their movement is anti-establishment.


 
And you've got the mises website and forums, which act as a repository for stock arguments used by tedious Mr Logic basement dwelling libertarian trolls - they've basically prepared answers for everything so that credulous idiots can try and look smart on the internet.

They really don't like it when you ask why, if Ron Paul and the Cato institute are really anti-corporate, they receive such large corporate donations though


----------



## J Ed (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And you've got the mises website and forums, which act as a repository for stock arguments used by tedious Mr Logic basement dwelling libertarian trolls - they've basically prepared answers for everything so that credulous idiots can try and look smart on the internet.


 
TAXATION IS SLAVERY
THE MINIMUM WAGE IS A RACIST POLICY THAT RESULTS IN APARTHEID
OBAMA IS A BABY KILLING DICTATOR (but Reagan was a saint)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

It's very telling if the people you hang out with think that banks and neo-liberalism are a "marxist plot" taffboy gwyrdd. What does that say about them? What does it say about their politics? And you want to encourage acceptance of this type of politics on places like here?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

_In reality what distinguished Karl Marx from the millions who were affected in the same way was that, in a world already in a state of gradual decomposition, he used his keen powers of prognosis to detect the essential poisons, so as to extract them and concentrate them, with the art of a necromancer, in a solution which would bring about the rapid destruction of the independent nations on the globe. But all this was done in the service of his race. _
_






Thus the Marxist doctrine is the concentrated extract of the mentality which underlies the general concept of life today. For this reason alone it is out of the question and even ridiculous to think that what is called our bourgeois world can put up any effective fight against Marxism. For this bourgeois world is permeated with all those same poisons and its conception of life in general differs from Marxism only in degree and in the character of the persons who hold it. The bourgeois world is Marxist but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people – that is to say, the bourgeoisie – being able to dominate the world[...]_

sorry, but these theories together with stuff about sheeple, the servile masses and bullshit about wirepullers have a lot more in common with the politics of the author of the above than any kind of progressive working class politics. and i think they are poisonous and need to be exposed for what they are.


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

If we shouldn't trust Max Keiser or other supposed loons, who should we trust? Evan Davis? Will Hutton?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If we shouldn't trust Max Keiser or other supposed loons, who should we trust? Evan Davis? Will Hutton?


 
How about using our brains and having a look at stuff ourselves? I'm not very good at that though


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

Me neither. Economics puzzles me as much as rocket science.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If we shouldn't trust Max Keiser or other supposed loons, who should we trust? Evan Davis? Will Hutton?


 
None of the above. Paul Mason is about the best in the mainstream and Doug Henwood's left business observer is worth a look, though generally gives a US centric take on things. But I'd always recommend looking at as wide a range of sources as possible.

There's a poster on here, love detective, who really really knows his stuff - if you're lucky he might give you a few pointers too.

And if you're really, really keen reading a bit of economic history can help you see through the bullshit - Harvey's a brief history of neoliberalism, Kliman's The Failure of Capitalist Production and Paul Mattick's Business as Usual are great.

To be honest 99 times out of 100 the broad consensus on urban is more reliable than most other news sources.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Me too but I'd rather trust reliable sources than "fractional reserve banking" bollocks ...


----------



## JimW (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> ...
> 
> And if you're really, really keen reading a bit of economic history can help you see through the bullshit - Harvey's a brief history of neoliberalism, Kliman's The Failure of Capitalist Production and Paul Mattick's Business as Usual are great.
> ...


Another one I found good (tho of course haven't finished yet) that is floating around on the net as a PDF is Milonakis and Fine, "From Political Economy to Economics", which shows how the dismal (pseudo)science of bourgeois economics divested itself of a grounding in social reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2013)

Here


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What is incredible is that some people see Keiser, Paul etc as anti-establishment figures. Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US (or was) with people who were into stuff like legalising cannabis etc, as an "alternative" candidate. Most of them probably weren't aware of his mad racism or his other political views.
> 
> _*Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!*_


 
I was just wondering if you can see any irony in this


----------



## Frumious B. (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Paul Mason is about the best in the mainstream


 
Interesting - he tweeted his view on the Money Week 'end of Britain' forecast: "re MoneyWeek. They are wrong on one thing: there is exit route = dump globalisation as in 1931-33. Last one out loses bigtime" It's a nice snappy answer, but I don't understand it.  Is he saying that Money Week is right (i.e. that all our banks will be made insolvent by rising interest rates) unless we start doing all the shit jobs which we have outsourced? I suppose that would give us full employment and lower living standards and a platform for growth.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Interesting - he tweeted his view on the Money Week 'end of Britain' forecast: "re MoneyWeek. They are wrong on one thing: there is exit route = dump globalisation as in 1931-33. Last one out loses bigtime" It's a nice snappy answer, but I don't understand it.  Is he saying that Money Week is right (i.e. that all our banks will be made insolvent by rising interest rates) unless we start doing all the shit jobs which we have outsourced? I suppose that would give us full employment and lower living standards and a platform for growth.


 
This is the problem with twitter - you can't really make arguments like these in 140 characters. I think he's saying that the route out of this is protectionism - and that those who try it last will lose out big time. I'm far from convinced by this to be honest - that's where the need for as wide a range of sources as possible comes in. But this kind of stuff is contested - I might not necessarily agree with it but it is a serious analysis of the kind you won't get from the likes of Keiser.

This is Mason's blog anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

junglevip said:


> I was just wondering if you can see any irony in this


 
Why would anyone see irony in that???


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why would anyone see irony in that???


 
I dont know really, at first glance it sounded conspiriloony.  Perhaps the RT folks are members of the KGB, who knows?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

junglevip said:


> I dont know really, at first glance it sounded conspiriloony. Perhaps the RT folks are members of the KGB, who knows?


 
It's not conspiraloonery at all - Russia Today is the Russian state broadcaster. This is a demonstrable fact.


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's not conspiraloonery at all - Russia Today is the Russian state broadcaster. This is a demonstrable fact.


 
Feel free to demonstrate then.  Wiki says autonomous and non profit, it could be wrong...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

junglevip said:


> Feel free to demonstrate then. Wiki says autonomous and non profit, it could be wrong...


 
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all


 
Not exactly cast iron but hey, who cares

EDIT

Sorry Columbia Journalism Review. I am sure that you are at least in-part credible


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

junglevip said:


> Not exactly cast iron but hey, who cares
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Sorry Columbia Journal Review. I am sure that you are at least in-part credible


 
Probably more reliable than wikipedia - and even in the wiki article you linked to it says this:



> Creation of Russia Today was a part of larger effort by the Kremlin intended to improve the image of Russia abroad.[15] RT was conceived by former media minister Mikhail Lesin,[16] and Vladimir Putin’s press spokesperson Aleksei Gromov[17]


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Probably more reliable than wikipedia - and even in the wiki article you linked to it says this:


 
I haven't linked to anything of the sort.

EDIT:

No wait, maybe I did but the KGB/CJR hacked in and deleted them.  On the sayso of Vlad P


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

junglevip said:


> I haven't linked to anything of the sort.


 
Apologies - the wiki page you referred to then. Not that it makes any difference to the point.


----------



## junglevip (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Apologies - the wiki page you referred to then. Not that it makes any difference to the point.


 
I put the snide remark in after your post.  Apologies


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

No worries - made me laugh anyway


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!


 
I have to admit, as I was skim-reading your post I read "state broadcaster" as being "skate boarder". I'm now wondering how much of the rest of the thread I need to re-read.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> These fruitbats think that bankers can just create money to make them (or at least their banks) rich, when in reality all they make is the interest, and even that only if the money is repaid.


Are you for real? Do you know what even 1% on every pound in circulation adds up to per year?

And do you know what happens if you can't pay back your loan? Yep, the bank gets to take things of real value - your stuff, your house maybe.



SpineyNorman said:


> I agree with pretty much all of that. But that's just the system doing what the system does and they're trying to say that it's when the money is created that the theft takes place, when it's through interest, investments, state bail-outs etc that they really get fat, not through magicking money out of thin air.


 
It's their system silly... they get to create money out of thin air (by loaning it), charge interest, when the loan is paid back the new money is destroyed, but the bank has done very nicely out of it. The risk is that "a run on the bank" can get them at any time, because at any time they might have far greater liabilities than cash to fulfil them with. So our lovely governments guarantee against that - this alone tells you that our governments are bought and paid for - these guarantees are worth huge sums! It's like a poker player that gets to gamble so he usually makes a profit but in the event he gets caught, the town has to pay for it. It's a horrendous scam, and it's come about because hardly anyone understood what they were up to, and most of those got bought off along the way.

_It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. _*Henry Ford*


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Henry Ford is certainly a credible source when it comes to this kind of thing.

I'm not going to get into any kind of discussion with you about this though, I value my sanity too highly.


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently, much of the freemen, conspiraloon, zeitgeist, occupy, etc fraternity are now going on about Agenda 21 being a new global conspiracy, A21 could have been a very positive development from Rio 92: lots of environmentalists effectively used its localist approch to make demnands on councils, etc, where do they get these ideas from...


I don't know about any conspiracy theories, or much about Agenda 21 generally, but the only time I have ever come across it is the couple of miles worth of canal from central Oxford north which are Agenda 21 moorings. A bunch of eco-hippy types persuaded British Waterways and the council to let them have amazingly cheap mooring permits for the area to create a sustainable living community.

Very few of the originals are left. They sold their boats with a £20-30k premium on the price because they had ridiculously cheap permits for living in the centre of Oxford. It's very hard to get those permits back from people who have paid a huge premium for their boats precisely because they had cheap permits attached, so they are having to be gradually reclaimed by very strict enforcement of licensing rules about rubbish disposal etc. These are, of course, being snapped up at auction by the kind of people who can afford over £4k/year to rent a mooring.

Fucking hippies.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

This weekend's _Morning Star_ has a cartoon by Leon Kuhn on page 13 showing Marx writing these words on a blackboard:


> Banks in capitalist society are institutions for the systematic robbery of the people.


I can't find this quote anywhere in Marx and suspect it is a fabrication or an urban myth. After all, Marx concentrated on analysing _production_ in capitalist society and said that that's where the robbery of workers takes place and by employers not banks. The quote also suggests that banks would have a different role in a non-capitalist society whereas Marx made it clear that there would be no room for banks in his conception of a socialist or communist society.

I could be wrong about the quote but, if it is genuine, does anyone know where he wrote it? Or who else it's from?


----------



## Gromit (Mar 24, 2013)

I'd like to remember who i heard point this out but it goes something like this:

The current global financial crisis wasn't cause by a physical thing such as:

A famine affecting the global food supply.
A natural disaster destroying economic activity.
A war draining the resources of several economies.

The day before and the day after the financial world when tits up the planet and its people were producing the same number of real things (food, minerals, products, services) than they had been before.
What happened is that the numbers bankers use to keep score got fucked up by the mortgages / credit nonsense that went on and then the world reacted to these abstracts by changing its economic behaviour. Slowing construction, consumer spending and confidence, shedding jobs etc.

It is a nonsense how we run things this way.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Are you for real? Do you know what even 1% on every pound in circulation adds up to per year?
> 
> And do you know what happens if you can't pay back your loan? Yep, the bank gets to take things of real value - your stuff, your house maybe.
> 
> ...


I have usually joined in in the ban Jazzz calls, and have tended to agree that he is more a innocent among wolves than an anti Semitic troll. However after pages of being shown that his pals are racists and fascists, he supports an argument that there is a conspiracy in banking by quoting with approval one of the last century's most notorious anti Semites.
 There is no doubt in my mind, he is undoubtedly openly declaring himself proud to be a racist.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

Gromit said:


> ...
> The current global financial crisis wasn't cause by a physical thing such as:...


But there were causes in the "real economy" from accounts I've seen, going right back to the oil crisis of the '70s and subsequent shifting of the crisis from place to place or sector to sector. Not my area of expertise and haven't got the accounts in front of me, but can dig them up if needed; any way, point is that the particualr fiscal events were themselves merely a symptom which is why they don't seem to  be a "real" cause.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Henry Ford is certainly a credible source when it comes to this kind of thing.
> .



Is jazzz quoting racists again?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

Henry ford as a source about the banking system? Really?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

Not only one of the world's most notorious anti-semites but he hated unions and workers as well, not surprising when you consider who he was. It's not surprising you consider this shit normal when you get people who quote from this sort of stuff daily in the sort of circles you hang round in.

Hitler kept a copy of Ford's book "The International Jew - The World's Foremost Problem" by his bed ffs. He also paid for several print runs of the Protocols and was key in getting that text distributed as widely in the USA and abroad as possible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

also made men work for  Dollar a day during the sepression because he was tighter than a gnats chuff


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW - I'm no expert either (guess that's the difference between us and Jazzz - he's an expert after watching a couple of youtube videos after all - love detective is the best on here with this stuff IMO) but I've been doing a fair bit of reading around it lately, found Kliman's book especially good (completely changed the way I see a lot of this stuff too). But I tend to see flaws in the regulation of the banking system as the _proximate _cause of the crisis, but a more fundamental crisis in capitalism (low rate of profit) as the underlying cause - regulation was loosened in order to facilitate greater felxibility in investment and, to an extent, outright fraud in order to sustain profits at an artificially high rate in order to avoid the crisis happening in the 70s. If that hadn't been done we'd have still had a crisis but it may have occurred at a different time and been actualised in a different way. Fractional banking itself is essential for the smooth (or relatively smooth) running of the modern capitalist system anyway as it allows for savings to circulate around the economy - without that the system would have collapsed long ago - so it's more an expression of the capitalist base economy than some kind of aberration from it.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

Yep, that's a better way of putting it - they caused the current symptoms of crisis we are seeing, but that crisis is the underlying logic of capital in motion. Always think it's interesting that you get talk about "greedy" bankers but not a discussion of what incentivises and enables, demands even, this type of accumulation; cod appeals to "human nature" rather than a look at social dynamics.


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

The gold standard would effectively put us in the same position as the Eurozone countries: unable to print our own money, aka fucked.

Things were way less stable on the gold standard than they are now. The NYT has unfortunately worked out that people were just deleting their cookies to get around the paywall so I can't access the article, but I think it might be this one: Golden Instability


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Let me guess who wrote this article before i click on it. KRUGMAN


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.


I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.


 
Aside from the problems with lack of flexibility and so on (which are the major problem with the GS - and a big part of the reason why it was abandoned in the first place) it would probably artificially inflate the price of gold, causing all kinds of problems for industries that use it - not just jewelery etc but also electronics and so on.

But the big thing would be lack of fiscal flexibility. When people are saving, not investing etc. that money goes out of circulation (doubly so if you're abandoning fractional banking, as savings could not be lent out) so one of the most effective means governments have of overcoming this is by issuing new money to kind of pump prime the economy. They wouldn't be able to do that under the gold standard unless they went out and bought more gold, and thinking about it that would kind of defy the object since they'd be spending £x on gold, presumably from overseas, to buy enough gold to back the printing of £x of new money - so they wouldn't gain anything anyway.


----------



## yield (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If they brought back the gold standard the economy would be even more fucked than what it is now. Besides I'm sure it's impossible to anyway for various economic reasons I don't fully understand.


It's commodity fetishism. Pure and simple.


free spirit said:


> I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.


There's still tones of gold stored in London. Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Bank of Nova Scotia and Société Générale set the international gold price.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm surprised currency cranks and peak oil doomers haven't got together and synthesised their mentalism into an argument for oil backed currency. Probably make more sense than gold in the modern economy but I don't know how it could work and it would still fuck the economy.

Edit: I'm not dismissing peak oil, it's a very serious and shit yourself scary issue but the uber doomers do seem to speak with the same kind of certainty, about things they can't possibly know for sure, as do conspiraloons.


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

free spirit said:


> I'd think us barely holding any gold would be an issue, along with gold being at the top of a bubble, so in no way being a stable commodity to peg a currency against.


Plus having very little room for manoeuvre when the shit hits the fan.

No pretty graphs, but this article gives a decent explanation of the economics of the gold standard (well referenced to external sources) and the politics behind calls to bring it back:



> The gold standard delusion
> 
> So why is the gold standard a bad idea? Economist Robert Samuelson has a good summary here, but by far the most important thing to understand is that adhering to the gold standard severely limits government flexibility in responding to what’s actually happening, economically, in the world. The business cycle goes up and down, recessions — and crashes — come and go, and over time, governments and economists have determined that a mix of fiscal and monetary policy can ameliorate the harshest effects of those zigs and zags.
> 
> ...


 

And some vicarious Krugman to keep butcher's happy 


> "Under the gold standard America had no major financial panics other than in 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1907, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933," Krugman wrote. "Oh, wait."
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/paul-krugman-gold-standard_n_1832767.html


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I have usually joined in in the ban Jazzz calls, and have tended to agree that he is more a innocent among wolves than an anti Semitic troll. However after pages of being shown that his pals are racists and fascists, he supports an argument that there is a conspiracy in banking by quoting with approval one of the last century's most notorious anti Semites.
> There is no doubt in my mind, he is undoubtedly openly declaring himself proud to be a racist.


oh for god's sake. The point is to try to show that this isn't simply 'the system' - it's one that came about despite many people objecting, and objecting vociferously.

Henry Ford may have been very wrong on social issues, he was right about banking and building motor cars.

We can have this one instead:

_I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. _*Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

The slave-owner? Who argued that the american people did not include black people (or poor white people)? You cloth eared bumpkin.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

Just as well then, that private banks don't control the issue of currency.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fractional banking itself is essential for the smooth (or relatively smooth) running of the modern capitalist system anyway as it allows for savings to circulate around the economy - without that the system would have collapsed long ago - so it's more an expression of the capitalist base economy than some kind of aberration from it.


Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say. This simply isn't true. There is no reason to assume that the sum of money in circulation has to be less with full-reserve banking than with fractional. And rather than having private institutions dictate how much money is around it is surely far better to have that under public control.

In case you missed it on the other thread, here's the IMF working paper on full-reserve banking http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

> Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say.


 
There we have it. There cannot be a rartional response because a perfoming clown has got me in his cage.

Did you read that paper jazzz? Answer honestly and promptly.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Just as well then, that private banks don't control the issue of currency.


Well they do I'm afraid.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well they do I'm afraid.


What's an IMF working paper?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well they do I'm afraid.


 
No, they don't.  You're wrong.  You've been shown to be wrong again and again.  Do you want to go through it again?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Stockholm syndrome, as Max Keiser would say. This simply isn't true. There is no reason to assume that the sum of money in circulation has to be less with full-reserve banking than with fractional. And rather than having private institutions dictate how much money is around it is surely far better to have that under public control.
> 
> In case you missed it on the other thread, here's the IMF working paper on full-reserve banking http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf


 
You seem to have forgotten to include the quote from Mein Kampf. And anyway, aren't the IMF part of the Rothschild Zionist NWO conspiracy? Or are they temporarily not involved in that when you (think you) agree with them (but haven't actually bothered reading and digesting the paper)?

I agree that you'd need the same quantity of money in circulation. The point is you wouldn't be able to achieve that without printing new money - how could you possibly when banks can only lend timed deposits?

Anyway, I'm not getting into a debate with you because although I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt since people on here I respect seem to like you irl I now can't escape the conclusion that you're an antisemitic loon.

Also, something about bringing me down to your level then beating me with experience.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

If ever there was a case study in why youtube 'research' isn't a good thing to base your world view on jazzz is it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> oh for god's sake. The point is to try to show that this isn't simply 'the system' - it's one that came about despite many people objecting, and objecting vociferously.
> 
> Henry Ford may have been very wrong on social issues, he was right about banking and building motor cars.
> 
> ...


 
Henry Ford was an industrialist, he was one of the "elite" that he is supposedly criticising, as was thomas jefferson ffs. It's like using Bush's quotations about freedom a political argument ffs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Didn't Jefferson also keep slaves? And Ford's views on banking are inseparable from his views on social issues - ie. Jews. And his building motor cars (why do you post like a 1950s TV presenter?) is inseparable from his union bashing and opportunistic hyper-exploitation.

Stockholm syndrome indeed.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> No, they don't. You're wrong. You've been shown to be wrong again and again. Do you want to go through it again?


I have already indeed spent much time going through how banks create money and it is the truth of the matter that they do. If you have a question I am happy to further explain it.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I have already indeed spent much time going through how banks create money and it is the truth of the matter that they do. If you have a question I am happy to further explain it.


 
Yes, you've spent time having your arguments taken apart.  Do we need to do this again?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I have already indeed spent much time going through how banks create money and it is the truth of the matter that they do. If you have a question I am happy to further explain it.


 
Just fuck off eh? You've been repeatedly exposed as an idiot who has no clue what he's on about by love detective, Jean-Luc and others. This may go some way towards explaining why you consistently fail to recognise that your arguments have been destroyed.

I remember when people used to say Blagsta was out of order when he called you an antisemite. Not any more eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

Ahead of the game, that's me.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Henry Ford may have been very wrong on social issues, he was right about banking and building motor cars.


Right about banking?
 "International financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the international Jew: German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all those countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme . . . here the Jew is a threat"


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

Henry ford, really? Jesus wept.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

And all of these people Jazzz quotes approvingly were members of the ruling class themselves.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

But he's a twoof seeker, we're all just sheeple who believe everything we're told. Stockholm syndrome and stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

remember those real conspiracies that truth seeking loons help to obscure? the protocols and the story of their world wide spread around the world was one of them. the promotion of them by henry ford was an example of a member of the elite using his influence to cover up the truth, spread "social discord" and to spread hatred against a group other than himself. But he didn't have a big nose or wear a yarmulke so it was all right.

These people were the fucking elite jazzz. The company he founded is now one of the biggest companies in the world.


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

Benefit of the doubt evaporated here too. I genuinely like the bloke, when he isn't spreading anti-semitic propaganda or recklessly endangering lives with his anti-vaccination nonsense.

But I don't really care if he's consciously racist or not any more. He's been given enough chances and enough reading material over the years and he still comes back with unchanged arguments, and chucks more misleading poison into the mix any time he is challenged. It's gone way beyond the point of acceptable behaviour on here, as far as I'm concerned. Racism is not tolerated from anyone else and hiding behind conspiracy theories doesn't cut it.

If you repeatedly post material from anti-semitic sites despite repeated requests not to, fuck you and your faux innocence. It's real people's lives being endangered by the spread of this filth and I don't see why urban should allow itself to be a conduit for that.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree that you'd need the same quantity of money in circulation. The point is you wouldn't be able to achieve that without printing new money - how could you possibly when banks can only lend timed deposits?


Well this is precisely it, we would print our own money so that we have enough in circulation. And the great thing about that is that we don't owe it back to the banks. You might very well not need a bank loan because you would already have the stuff. We are so on the hamster wheel of the banks that we do not realise that life should be so much easier.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 24, 2013)

Yeah, just printing money, that worked so well in the past, ay.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

the hamster wheel of oppression is many spoked and we are forever doomed to run on it like a gnat chained to a boulder called barclays


----------



## Yelkcub (Mar 24, 2013)

Why do you get into it with him? He's nuts, stupid, evil or all three. Any whatever you say just gives further attention.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the promotion of them by henry ford was an example of a member of the elite using his influence to cover up the truth, spread "social discord" and to spread hatred against a group other than himself. But he didn't have a big nose or wear a yarmulke so it was all right.


 
Don't be silly, Henry Ford was Jewish. You must know how absolutely horrific and dangerous it is to accuse non-racists and anti-racists of elements of racism in their activities. This ruins genuine anti-racism. Cynthia McKinney and Henry Ford are both opposed to International Zionism not Jews  - pls check yr facts and seek the truth!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

> “I know who caused the war (World War I)—the German-Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts! I can’t give out the facts now, because I haven’t got them all yet, but I’ll have them soon.”


 
go on henry, tell t like it is MATE


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

guys, get over yourselves. This is about banking. Race has got fuck all to do with it. So what if I don't know much about the social policies of Ford or Eisenhower or Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson all of whom spoke out and warned against the monetary system as it stands now among many others. If there is a problem, let me distance myself from any social policy they may have had. The important thing to get heads around is how money is created and whether it is in our interests.

You should all realise that the current system is ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Whole countries go down over 'confidence'. Whole countries are in massive amounts of debt that can never be repaid. Banks make absolutely fortunes consistently and when their games fail they are bailed out by the people. It's a massive scam.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> go on henry, tell t like it is MATE


 
OK then he will: If fans wish to know the trouble with American baseball they have it in three words — too much Jew.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 24, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, just printing money, that worked so well in the past, ay.


If no-one created money then there would be no money. The question is, who should create it and how?


----------



## where to (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> You should all realise...



Thank you, good shepherd.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> guys, get over yourselves. This is about banking. Race has got fuck all to do with it. So what if I don't know much about the social policies of Ford or Eisenhower or Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson all of whom spoke out and warned against the monetary system as it stands now among many others. If there is a problem, let me distance myself from any social policy they may have had. The important thing to get heads around is how money is created and whether it is in our interests.
> 
> You should all realise that the current system is ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Whole countries go down over 'confidence'. Whole countries are in massive amounts of debt that can never be repaid. Banks make absolutely fortunes consistently and when their games fail they are bailed out by the people. It's a massive scam.


_Because_ you don't know the social policies of name after name after name

May someone lift your darkness.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Nobody is denying that the current system is insane Jazzz - you're talking to anticapitalists here.

We just recognise that the thinly veiled antisemitic conspiracy theories you peddle, the theoretical equivalent of pushing pencils up your nose, wearing underpants on your head and screaming 'help me I'm a pixie' are even less sane.

And one final time since you're clearly hard of thinking - the 'social policies' of Ford et al are completely inseparable from their thinking on banking - as several people have clearly shown on this thread using quotes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

I've only once called for anyone to be banned - and that was when longdog was saying drug users and travelers should be euthenised. But I have to wonder - why hasn't this racist troll been banned yet? It's obvious for anyone who looks at it sensibly that if anyone else tried pulling this kind of shit they'd be gone in no time.

There's an argument that we should tolerate this stuff because the only way it will be beaten is by exposing its inherent stupidity. I'm not sure if I agree with it but if that's what we're doing we should do it for everyone. Not just one person simply because he happens to be polite and a good piano player.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

> The same formidable willpower and organizational instincts that led to Ford's renown and success as the inventor of the automobile assembly line, the same obsessive determination and singular focus that created the Ford Motor Company, resulted in the destructive mass production of hate. With America heading into World War I, Ford's media campaign took off and continued well into the 1930s, as he published "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," "The International Jew," and for ninety-one consecutive weeks, an uninterrupted serious of venomous essays in "The Dearborn Independent." Declaring "I know who caused the war," Henry Ford became ever more convinced that these "parasites, these sloths and lunatics ... apostles of murder," the "German-Jewish bankers," were liable for society's ills."
> 
> An interesting note is that Hitler had a large framed portrait of Henry Ford, Sr. in his private office.


 
a stand-up guy


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've only once called for anyone to be banned - and that was when longdog was saying drug users and travelers should be euthenised. But I have to wonder - why hasn't this racist troll been banned yet? It's obvious for anyone who looks at it sensibly that if anyone else tried pulling this kind of shit they'd be gone in no time.
> 
> There's an argument that we should tolerate this stuff because the only way it will be beaten is by exposing its inherent stupidity. I'm not sure if I agree with it but if that's what we're doing we should do it for everyone. Not just one person simply because he happens to be polite and a good piano player.


Useful idiots are useful.

But I suspect all we're achieving here is boosting his loon sites in the search engine rankings.

Broken links in his posts would be a halfway house, I guess. Is there a way to ban people from posting live links so they have to post them broken?

Lazy Llama


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Don't be silly, Henry Ford was Jewish. You must know how absolutely horrific and dangerous it is to accuse non-racists and anti-racists of elements of racism in their activities. This ruins genuine anti-racism. Cynthia McKinney and Henry Ford are both opposed to International Zionism not Jews  - pls check yr facts and seek the truth!


 
Ah yes, most anti-semites are jewish, because anti-semitism itself is a jewish plot to make them all look like victims, except when they're telling the truth, then they're brave truth-tellers.




			
				jazzz said:
			
		

> guys, get over yourselves. This is about banking. Race has got fuck all to do with it. So what if I don't know much about the social policies of Ford or Eisenhower or Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson all of whom spoke out and warned against the monetary system as it stands now among many others. If there is a problem, let me distance myself from any social policy they may have had. The important thing to get heads around is how money is created and whether it is in our interests.
> 
> You should all realise that the current system is ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Whole countries go down over 'confidence'. Whole countries are in massive amounts of debt that can never be repaid. Banks make absolutely fortunes consistently and when their games fail they are bailed out by the people. It's a massive scam.



Dont you get these people ARE PART OF THE RULING CLASS JAZZZ. Do you think they were somehow lone truth-tellers bereft of influence? Ford started the fuckin Ford Motor Company for christ's sake, he was hardly some lone voice who somehow knew what banking was all about. His statements about banking have to be viewed in the context of who he was and his position in society and his position as a leading industrial capitalist. Would you trust a man like that to give an account of what capitalism is, to critique his own position within capitalism? No of course you wouldn't.

Their social policies were hardly incidental, they had real effects on people's lives despite their tub thumping abstract rhetoric about banks and revolutions and how we'd have a revolution if we knew about how banks worked, they were terrified of a prospect of a real revolution. Once again it is like taking George W Bush seriously when he talks about "freedom and democracy" and how important it is to educate children, and making out that he was some kind of fighter for freedom, viewed abstractly, viewed independently of any of his other actions.

You have to remember at at the time of Henry Ford et al, anti-semitism was a very strong social force a lot bigger than it is today. The Times, hardly a voice of alternative truth but then as now a voice of the bourgeois media held a series of articles implying that the Protocols was a real document. These people had powerful positions in society. They had their own reasons for promoting this filth, which was often to draw attention away from themselves and their own activities.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

If we're going to do that we should do it for all loons, not just one because he's supposedly an OK guy irl and a decent piano player.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

One of the leading heads of state of one of the most powerful countries in Europe had a poster of him in his office. Does that sound like somebody who was "telling the truth" to you and knew about how banking worked? If Margaret Thatcher said something about banks you vaguely agreed with, would you go around quoting her uncritically as some sort of supporter of a revolution? Actually you probably would because you don't seem to be able to judge anything critically.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

'If there is a problem, let me distance myself from any social policy they may have had.'

That's exactly the line German nationalists used when translating, publishing and distributing key parts of Ford's writings and his _Dearborn Independent_ in the early 1920s. So much so that Hitler salutes him in his 1929 autobiography: "While England sweats to maintain her position in this world, the Jew organizes his attack for its conquest. He already sees the present-day European states as will-less tools in his fist, whether indirectly through a so-called Western democracy, or in the form of direct domination by Jewish Bolshevism. But it is not only the Old World that he holds thus enmeshed, the same fate menaces the New. It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union. Every year makes them more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence." (p640) and then of course Ford happily accepts the Grand Cross of the German Eagle in July 1938 as presented by Nazi ambassadors:


----------



## Lazy Llama (Mar 24, 2013)

ymu said:


> Is there a way to ban people from posting live links so they have to post them broken?
> 
> Lazy Llama


There are ways to do that; we use a variant to catch newly registered spammers (most of the time).

One for the collective mods to consider...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

I particularly enjoyed Fords emphatic, once-and-for-all renunciation of anti semitism and his vitriolic rants recanting his previous statements and singing 'ooh aah up the stern, ooh aah up the stern'

oh wait he didn't ever do that, he made some mealy mouthed semi withdrawals after having already been the prime fucking diseminator of anti jewish agit prop for most of his miserable existence. If there was a god he would have aranged things so that henry fucking ford was crushed beneath the wheels of his model fucking T and the corpse pissed upon by union members, jews and black people. He was a maggot whose critique of banking came down to a perverse anti-semetic line and anyone quoting him to support their on critiques of banking should be ashamed of themselves. However anyone who bought and spread the 'we did it guys' line over sandy hook clearly wouldn't know what shame was even if Dame Shame herself rocked up and fucked their eye-socket

/DC


----------



## ymu (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If we're going to do that we should do it for all loons, not just one because he's supposedly an OK guy irl and a decent piano player.


I think we do normally insist that links to racist/other hate sites are broken, no?

If he'd do it himself, that would be fab. Otherwise, it's mods on call, which is a bit unfair.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> You have to remember at at the time of Henry Ford et al, anti-semitism was a very strong social force a lot bigger than it is today.


 
Who does Ford quietly support in the Detroit mayoral contest in 1924? Charles Bowels, the Ku Klux Klan candidate, who probably wins a majority of votes but the Republican and Democratic Party unite disqualify some of them alleging fraud - allowing a razor edge victory for the Republican.
The Henry Ford Hospital, later part of the Ford Foundation, blocks all Jews from any employment in the institution white Protestant American doctors and nurses, no Jews, some black cleaners, no Jews. The emergence of 'Only Gentiles Need Apply' in the department stores. Urging the police to round up all suspected Jews as part of the defence of Prohibition. Softly supporting the white rioters that attempt to lynch a black doctor moving out of the black ghetto. Distributing the Dearborn Independent not only to his plant and show-room workers but also to Michigan's massive KKK membership. Later in the 1930s - funding the anti-semitic points around America First and Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin and Social Justice, Gerald L K Smith of Senator Huey Long's Share The Wealth movement and the Union Party. These three vicious movements block the advance of trade unionism, defeat the Wagner Act, act as strikebreakers and disruptors halting the AFL-CIO advance in propaganda to the non-unionised and physical attacks on the unionised.
Father Smith insisting that Nazi German brutality against the Jews was a myth throughout the war and merely a ploy for Jews to immigrate into America as bogus asylum seeks to shore up the Roosevelt vote.

None of the above matters. The Ford who was opposed to banks that refused to lend him super cheap so that he could mkae profits, squeeze his workforce conclude deals to expand and dominate US and world production in motor vehicles (still a risky investment throughout the 1910s and 1920s) - this man is a reliable expert on banking.
This man whose opposition towards banking is based on the decline of his business with the First World War. Someone who is so opposed to "banking" that he sends teams of his company social workers to spy on his employees to keep an eye on that they are taking out mortgages from banks - local banks - banks he likes. This Ford saying something dumb about bankers - this matters.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

I believe he reprinted lengthly exepts from the protocols in his dearborn. Scum.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I believe he reprinted lengthly exepts from the protocols in his dearborn. Scum.


 
Yes he did, in part in order to explain the First World War which he was opposed to - simply because it dried up his business - no one wanted personal motor vehicles the middle-class public bought war bonds instead, and trade with Europe was killed. He becomes anti-semitic and anti-banking after 1917 although there are elements of it there before - the bedrock of his ideas are  of course anti-labourism and anti-socialism.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

I didn't know most of that mate. 

It's amazing how people can think that his general social standing etc has nothing to do with his "opinions" on banking.

As if it can be divorced his other views. His dislike of banking came down to a dislike of jews. Actually when I was searching for the Mein Kampf quote I posted earlier in the thread, one of the first results that came up was from David Icke's forum.

Ymu is right, this filth kills people, it destroys people's lives. Not just the people it's targetted against either. And the only beneficiaries are the ruling class it claims to be against.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 24, 2013)

Interesting stuff on this thread re Ford, thanks all.

I think I vaguely was aware of some of it, but had forgotten.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

jazzz style conspiracism is essentially pre-war US partly race-based populism - it has simply transformed itself with new buzzwords not the dangers of commercial banking now but dangers of fractional reserve banking, not Jewish banking controlling the nation but international banking controlling the nation.

Here is Coughlin's Social Justice which was also in part funded by Ford:






The same ideas: bank deposits aren't based on current or future money, banking is fraud and would have been declared illegal if the nation wasn't taken over by banks, banking and easing or freezing credit is something done on a whim by financiers or bond-merchants ladi-dadi-da tc.

There's nothing there - why do banks - aggregators of promises - multiply as new trade routes are discovered and the agricultural revolution emerge? what does non-bank capitalism look like? what does single-bank state capitalism look like? no one of this is ever answered - because it's always 'focus on the banks lending more than they have' and arrest them or force them onto a gold standard (never explained) (so that our nation wins).


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There's nothing there - why do banks - aggregators of promises - multiply as new trade routes are discovered and the agricultural revolution emerge? what does non-bank capitalism look like? what does single-bank state capitalism look like? no one of this is ever answered - because it's always 'focus on the banks lending more than they have' and arrest them or force them onto a gold standard (never explained) (so that our nation wins).


Bizarre questions. As it is banks who create the money, it would seem logical that they spring up where new money is going to be created in the economy. What does non-bank capitalism look like? Well assuming that full-reserve banking is what you are on about (surely, you aren't asking to do away with lending, or having your money held somewhere safely) I would refer you again to the IMF paper "the chicago plan revisited". It looks like capitalism, except one where we aren't all in debt to the banks and they don't get to own all our stuff.

I really can't believe, in these current times, that someone can post up something like the above as if to imply what nonsense. *Those warning against the banks were right! *They've just stolen god knows how much from the Cypriots, entire countries like Greece are going down. We bail them out to god knows how much meanwhile banker's bonuses are more than salaries normal people can dream of.

Notably Iceland was very badly rocked, but they have turned the game by REFUSING to bail out the banks like the rest of us did and putting the bankers in jail instead.



> *Whisper it - Iceland's economy is on its way back. The frozen island on the edge of the Arctic, which had 10 straight quarters of shrinking GDP, is suddenly on a steady run of seven quarters of growth averaging at 2.5% per annum - something that few European countries can boast.*
> Unemployment has fallen to just below 5% and confidence is returning.
> This nascent recovery from economic crisis is testament to the Icelandic character. The people here have for centuries clung to existence on a frozen remote island which is 70% tundra, and where in winter dawn breaks close to noon and dusk happens in the mid afternoon.
> 
> "Essentially we're still a nation of farmers and fishermen," says Iceland's President Olafur Grimsson, who has been in office since 1996 and who has twice *refused to sign legislation which would have repaid Britain the £2.3bn owed when Iceland's banking system collapsed in 2008, forcing the UK government to reimburse British savers who had Icesave accounts.*



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20936685


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

The banks are just an aspect of capitalism, the problem is capitalism and the profit system and the banks are just a symptom of it. How many people has industrial capitalism killed jazzz? how many workers have died because of inadequate safety (within small businesses as well as large corporations) or because of the greed of companies they work for which have nothing to do with producing financial products? somewhere like, for example, the bhopal disaster, was caused by the bad practices of a chemicals company.

Financial capitalism is no better and no worse than industrial capitalism, you cannot concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other. Do you think what Henry Ford wanted (when he was sucking up to the bankers he liked anyway) would have been better? He brought in one-dollar a day pay ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

Do you think that before the advent of fractional banking that capitalism in all its forms (and the state in all its forms) was not killing people? do you think that nobody died or had their quality of life severely impaired through sickness, injury etc caused by the conditions in fords factories, had their opportunities for social life and a good quality of life curtailed from what it would have been if his wealth had been shared out rather than him grabbing it all and using it to fund his filthy writings?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

Sickening stuff. You're a disgrace Jazzz - the intellectual dishonesty is bad enough (pretending, I assume to yourself as well as everyone else, that your daft loon arguments haven't been destroyed) but you've associated yourself with antisemites too many times for it to be a coincidence now. It's not just the odd link, or a few links, or even most of them - every piece of 'evidence' you post these days is either direct from an antisemite or from a site that also hosts stuff about holocause denial etc. It makes me feel sick and it reminds me that this kind of filth has a seductive appeal, even to otherwise seemingly pleasant people. It scares the shit out of me, especially as it seems that these vile pieces of shit seem to be having more success in countering the mainstream narrative than the left.

I think it likely that in the not too distant future the shit will likely hit the fan with regards to the economy and a few other crisis points. And people like Jazzz, willingly or not, threaten to ensure that when it does we end up with something even more barbaric than we have now.

Sorry if this sounds over-pessimistic but this shit terrifies me and Jazzz is a reminder that some people are naive enough to be taken in by it, playing a useful idiot role for some really fucking nasty forces.

Fuck you Jazzz


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The banks are just an aspect of capitalism, the problem is capitalism and the profit system and the banks are just a symptom of it.


 
The point is that capitalism has mutated from an industrial to a financial form, in the West that is.

Usury is the essence of capitalism. Indeed the two terms are arguably synonymous. Capital is money invested at interest. Capitalism treats money as if it were a living creature, magically able to reproduce autonomously.

That was never considered a smart move, is condemned by all major religions and philosophers, generally ends in personal madness and social breakdown etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sickening stuff. You're a disgrace Jazzz - the intellectual dishonesty is bad enough (pretending, I assume to yourself as well as everyone else, that your daft loon arguments haven't been destroyed) but you've associated yourself with antisemites too many times for it to be a coincidence now. It's not just the odd link, or a few links, or even most of them - every piece of 'evidence' you post these days is either direct from an antisemite or from a site that also hosts stuff about holocause denial etc. It makes me feel sick and it reminds me that this kind of filth has a seductive appeal, even to otherwise seemingly pleasant people. It scares the shit out of me, especially as it seems that these vile pieces of shit seem to be having more success in countering the mainstream narrative than the left.
> 
> I think it likely that in the not too distant future the shit will likely hit the fan with regards to the economy and a few other crisis points. And people like Jazzz, willingly or not, threaten to ensure that when it does we end up with something even more barbaric than we have now.
> 
> ...


 
We've been through this before, but just to remind newer readers that Jazzz is no anti-semite, as he has often said, and indeed is a Jew himself.

It is very important, really _very _important indeed, to separate the critique of money-lending from anti-semitism. Threads like this have the opposite effect.

You won't have read them, but there are plenty of Americans who'll argue that any critique of capitalism--not usury, but capitalism--is inherently anti-semitic.  That's the road you're heading down here.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You should all realise that the current system is ABSOLUTELY INSANE. Whole countries go down over 'confidence'. Whole countries are in massive amounts of debt that can never be repaid. Banks make absolutely fortunes consistently and when their games fail they are bailed out by the people. It's a massive scam.


 
Absolutely true. Damn well said.

Money does not exist. Where _is _all this so-called "money" they're going on about then, if it's so important? Show it to us.

It's really pretty obvious that it doesn't exist, if you'll just _think _about it for a few minutes, rather than just screaming slander at the messengers.

In fact the vast majority of people in the world know, and have always known, that it doesn't exist. Why? Because _it's completely fucking obvious, _that's why.

You twits just can't see it because you've been fed bullshit by "economists" all your silly lives.

Lord save us from the half-educated. A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If we're going to do that we should do it for all loons, not just one because he's supposedly an OK guy irl and a decent piano player.


 
I didn't expect this of you, frankly.

Such is the fate of the boy who informs the mob that the emperor has no clothes.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Doug Henwood's left business observer is worth a look, though generally gives a US centric take on things. But I'd always recommend looking at as wide a range of sources as possible.
> 
> There's a poster on here, love detective, who really really knows his stuff - if you're lucky he might give you a few pointers too.


 
You can't agree with Henwood and Love Detective at the same time, you loon.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

free spirit said:


> deregulated banks are a huge part of the problem


 
Indeed, we might well say that they are the problem incarnate.

Translated from economese into human, "deregulation" means "letting the banks do whatever they want, i.e. run the world." Am I right or wrong?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> there does appear to have been one of those significant "quantity into quality" developments so beloved of Dialectical Materialism" enthusiasts , with the operation and impact of Finance Capital on a World scale over the last 30 years or so.


 
I think that's exactly what's happening.

But the development of quantitative into qualitative change is a Hegelian, idealist piece of logic, and nothing to do with "Dialectical Materialism."

Indeed, the _aufhebung _to which you allude consists precisely in the renewed bestowal of practical power on non-material entities.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

yield said:


> It's commodity fetishism. Pure and simple.


 
I don't know about "commodity" but banking is fetishism alright.

And because of this madness we allow them invent the existence of things called "Credit Default Options"--fire insurance on each other's homes--worse, on _our _homes--and then we're surprised when they burn them down.

We must be mad, literally mad. (Wait for the accusations to follow _that....)_


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 25, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> If no-one created money then there would be no money. The question is, who should create it and how?


The question surely is about value. How is value created?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 25, 2013)

Dwyer outs himself on the side of anti semitism. Who'd have thunk it.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Dwyer outs himself on the side of anti semitism. Who'd have thunk it.


 
Are you calling me an anti-semite?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> The question surely is about value. How is value created?


 
By human activity, du-uh. Money is but a symbol of human activity.  Human activity is made into a symbol the better thereby to alienate it from the one who performs it.

By the way, did you just call me an anti-semite?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry if this sounds over-pessimistic but this shit terrifies me and Jazzz is a reminder that some people are naive enough to be taken in by it, playing a useful idiot role for some really fucking nasty forces.


I don't think Jazzz is any real danger, after all this is a idiot who suggested sticking things into a main plug.

I find taffboy, xes etc more dangerous they're subtle enough not to fall into the open loonery of Jazzz but still promote this shit. Worse they want to infect the left with this shit.

Jazzz is so far out that you'd have to be already pretty far down this path to listen to him. It's taffboy and the like that are the danger to the young/naive.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The point is that capitalism has mutated from an industrial to a financial form, in the West that is.
> 
> Usury is the essence of capitalism. Indeed the two terms are arguably synonymous. Capital is money invested at interest. Capitalism treats money as if it were a living creature, magically able to reproduce autonomously.
> 
> That was never considered a smart move, is condemned by all major religions and philosophers, generally ends in personal madness and social breakdown etc.


 
Usury existed long before capitalism did though. And there are Islamic states for example where the practice of usury is outlawed but capitalism and its horrific effects continue.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Usury existed long before capitalism did though.


 
Usury existed before _industrial _capitalism. But there's no significant difference between what the banks do today and what a usurer would have done in ancient Athens or medieval Florence. Well, the only significant difference is that they do a hell of a lot more of it today.



frogwoman said:


> And there are Islamic states for example where the practice of usury is outlawed but capitalism and its horrific effects continue.


 
Not really. They get round the ban in various ways, but it still makes their brand of capitalism less toxic than ours.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

So you're saying capitalism has always existed, I really don't think it has. Capitalism didn't emerge until pretty late in human history, there were other modes of production first such as feudalism. People did not tend to work for profit as wage-labourers during feudal times.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really. They get round the ban in various ways, but it still makes their brand of capitalism less toxic than ours.


 
you can't have it both ways and I wouldn't say it was "less toxic" in what way is it less toxic? those countries are still affected by the financial crisis, they still have extremes of poverty and wealth and people still die because of sickness and injury caused by inadequate care from the system, which views workers as simply a tool and if that's broken then you've had it, and police repression in the interests of capital.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you can't have it both ways and I wouldn't say it was "less toxic" in what way is it less toxic? those countries are still affected by the financial crisis, they still have extremes of poverty and wealth and people still die because of sickness and injury caused by inadequate care from the system, which views workers as simply a tool and if that's broken then you've had it, and police repression in the interests of capital.


 
Having lived in both, I would honestly estimate that all of the above is now more true in (most of) the West than it is in (most of) the Islamic world. It's all certainly more true of the USA than it is of Turkey, for example. And the Islamic distaste for usury, which is more ethical than practical, is among the many reasons for that.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

I think you are wrong. In any case those countries still trade with the west and make use of western capital.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So you're saying capitalism has always existed, I really don't think it has. Capitalism didn't emerge until pretty late in human history, there were other modes of production first such as feudalism. People did not tend to work for profit as wage-labourers during feudal times.


 
No, obviously I'm not saying it's always existed. Money itself is a relatively late invention in human history, let alone usury. Although usury arguably predates money anyway.

And wherever it has existed, usury has generally been a sinister, underground activity practiced by pariah groups.

There were other modes of production before feudalism too, many of them capitalistic in nature. You may be equating capitalism with industrialization, or with wage labor? But the great slave systems of history have been capitalist too, including modern ones like the CSA, and wage slavery is not all that different in principle.

Capitalism is the alienation of human activity in the illusory form of money, and the attribution of magical properties to that illusory form. Enslavement and proletarianization work equally well for expropriation, capital doesn't care much either way.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

Capitalism is about wage labour though, and the money you earn is used to buy goods and services, slaves didn't work for a wage, they were captured and forced to to work, they might have been told that in return for the work they would get accommodation but that's a different thing? they weren't able to use what they earned and surely that's quite fundamental in a capitalist society?

i might be entirely wrong here, but that was my understanding of it


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think you are wrong. In any case those countries still trade with the west and make use of western capital.


 
Here's the difference. The accumulation of capital is the _raison d'etre _of the Western states.

Islamic states may not be averse to hypocritically accumulating a bit of capital. But the accumulation of capital is not their _raison d'etre._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Here's the difference. The accumulation of capital is the _raison d'etre _of the Western states.
> 
> Islamic states may not be averse to hypocritically accumulating a bit of capital. But the accumulation of capital is not their _raison d'etre._


 
i think that's bollocks tbh.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Capitalism is about wage labour though, and the money you earn is used to buy goods and services, slaves didn't work for a wage, they were captured and forced to to work, they might have been told that in return for the work they would get accommodation but that's a different thing? they weren't able to use what they earned and surely that's quite fundamental in a capitalist society?


 
They were able to use what they earned, often just enough of it to keep them alive, sometimes considerably more. Some slaves owned slaves themselves.

You're equating capitalism with wage labor. But money accumulated through slavery can be invested as capital equally well, can't it?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i think that's bollocks tbh.


 
It's not Iran's _raison d'etre.  _Although it used to be, under the Shah.... accumulating capital for _us._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> They were able to use what they earned, often just enough of it to keep them alive, sometimes considerably more. Some slaves owned slaves themselves.
> 
> You're equating capital with wage labor. But money accumulated through slavery can be invested as capital equally well, can't it?


 
Well aspects of feudalism and slavery still exist within capitalist society, the difference is that it's not the dominant mode of production, the majority of people aren't slaves or serfs, the majority of people who work, work for a wage. Although having said that this explanation isn't really sufficient to explain things like workfare etc, but i would argue that it's still aimed at maintaining capital and the "labour market", disciplining the working class and so on and depressing wages, not to get rid of them altogether.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's not Iran's _raison d'etre. _Although it used to be, under the Shah.... accumulating capital for _us._


 
I think most states exist both to perpetuate/"legitimise" themselves and the power of those who run them _and_ to accumulate capital.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Well aspects of feudalism and slavery still exist within capitalist society, the difference is that it's not the dominant mode of production, the majority of people aren't slaves or serfs, the majority of people who work, work for a wage. Although having said that this explanation isn't really sufficient to explain things like workfare etc, but i would argue that it's still aimed at maintaining capital and the "labour market", disciplining the working class and so on and depressing wages, not to get rid of them altogether.


 
The only difference is that a slave is sold outright, while a proletarian is rented by the hour.

Either way, their labor is expropriated, translated into the symbolic (and therefore unreal) form of money, and allegedly somehow enabled to magically grow in the bank accounts of the already very wealthy.

That's what capitalism is, that's all it is. It is usury and nothing more.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 25, 2013)

Talking about loon theories and dwyer turns up.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The only difference is that a slave is sold outright, while a proletarian is rented by the hour.


 
I don't think it's the only difference, slaves couldn't leave their masters and go to another master the way proletarians can leave their jobs and get hired and fired the way they can under capitalism. In addition slaves weren't full citizens, that's partly the point of it. In theory working class people have the same rights as anyone else under capitalism and the state has gone to great lengths to maintain that idea and legitimise the system in a way they simply didn't need to with slaves, for example with the right to vote etc - and there's another difference, slave-owning societies and feudal societies didn't have the centralised state in the way it exists today.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Talking about loon theories and dwyer turns up.


 
Ah Blagsta.

Did you just call me an anti-semite?

Answer.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think it's the only difference, slaves couldn't leave their masters and go to another master the way proletarians can leave their jobs and get hired and fired the way they can under capitalism.


 
What capitalism would that be?  The one with zero unemployment?  Guatemala?

A minority of very lucky proletarians have, at rare historical moments, enjoyed the freedom to choose their masters--probably slaves have enjoyed it in roughly the same proportion.  But all proletarians have to work for someone.



frogwoman said:


> In theory working class people have the same rights as anyone else under capitalism and the state has gone to great lengths to maintain that idea and legitimise the system in a way they simply didn't need to with slaves, for example with the right to vote etc.


 
Haha you know as well as I do what happens as soon as any of that threatens capital.



frogwoman said:


> and there's another difference, slave-owning societies and feudal societies didn't have the centralised state in the way it exists today.


 
Yes they did.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

of course they do but under slavery you usually had one master for life and he could "give you your freedom" whereas most w/c people have lots of different jobs throughout their lives.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

I blame the 60s and then bill hicks for this 3 decade flirtation of the right with the clothes of the left.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I blame the 60s and then bill hicks for this 3 decade flirtation of the right with the clothes of the left.


 
Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly _circa _1790?

Don't tell me.  Let me guess.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly _circa _1790?


 
This is literally the most tiresome smug shit it's possible to say. I bet you enjoy shitting yourself. fuck off


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

Hey delroy, did you know that arabs are also semites!!!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This is literally the most tiresome smug shit it's possible to say. I bet you enjoy shitting yourself. fuck off


 
Ladies and Gentlemen, exhibit A.

This fool is the reason for the state we are in.  Stupid, violent, basically 100% ignorant of everything and probably thinks of himself as on the "Left."

You do think of yourself as a "Leftist," don't you Delbert?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hey delroy, did you know that arabs are also semites!!!


 
Exhibit B.  This one's smart enough to know better.  Indeed he _does _know better, but he cannot renounce Delbert and his ilk.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you still envisage politics by analogy to the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly _circa _1790?
> 
> Don't tell me. Let me guess.


 
something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something


 
Exhibit C. Far from a Delbert, even far from a Leader of Delberts, but not far from a Delbertian fellow-traveller either, still has some limited potential, a striver for truth but not there yet.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> something something usury something something money doesn't exist something something


You forgot the rational proof of God's existence. Because symbols usury.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Now, let's put exhibits A, B and C together, and what haven't we got?

A serious opposition to capitalism, that's what we've not got.

Keep up the good work guys.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Stupid, violent, basically 100% ignorant of everything and probably thinks of himself as on the "Left."


 
 This is pretty accurate btw


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This is pretty accurate btw


 
You forgot "cowardly."


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You forgot "cowardly."


 
I was too scared to mention it


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Exhibit C. Far from a Delbert, even far from a Leader of Delberts, has some limited potential, a striver but not there yet.


 
I'll accept some of the stuff you say about money phil, what I won't accept is the idea that this means that the problem is banks and usury and not capitalism itself, and I don't think that "usury" is the same as capitalism. this may sound a bit thick, but I think the number of pawnbrokers, loan sharks or whatever in a place (which is basically what usury is) is often a symptom (not a cause) of economic decline, in many parts of the former soviet block there are tonnes of them on every street corner, you don't tend to see them so much in places where the economy was booming, until the recession there were a few but hardly any compared to what there are now around my way until a few years ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I was too scared to mention it


 
Not bad.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You forgot the rational proof of God's existence. Because symbols usury.


 
and witches. don't forget the witches.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> and witches. don't forget the witches.


The witches made me forget


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'll accept some of the stuff you say about money phil, what I won't accept is the idea that this means that the problem is banks and usury and not capitalism itself, and I don't think that "usury" is the same as capitalism. this may sound a bit thick, but I think the number of pawnbrokers, loan sharks or whatever in a place (which is basically what usury is) is often a symptom (not a cause) of economic decline, in many parts of the former soviet block there are tonnes of them on every street corner, you don't tend to see them so much in places where the economy was booming, until the recession there were a few but hardly any until a few years ago.


 
"Usury" just means lending money at interest, the rate doesn't matter.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> "Usury" just means lending money at interest, the rate doesn't matter.


 
It's not the same as capitalism though is it? It's one aspect of capitalism that's also taken place in other modes of production. And to me usury suggests loan sharks and stuff, you're right that it's lending money at any type of interest but as you say they often tend to operate in extra legal ways and were historically done by (but not exclusively) "pariah groups".


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's not the same as capitalism though is it? It's one aspect of capitalism that's also taken place in other modes of production.


 
Clowns are for laughing at, not for arguing with.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's not the same as capitalism though is it? It's one aspect of capitalism that's also taken place in other modes of production.


 
No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.


 
Finished. Over. Done with.

Industrial wage-slavery no longer exists.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.


 
It's not over and I wouldn't say it's "passed through" that stage.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Clowns are for laughing at, not for arguing with.


 
Give us a break Delbert.  You've had your fun, now please to go away Sir.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's not over and I wouldn't say it's "passed through" that stage.


 
In the West it has ceased to be the primary generator of capital, has it not?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.


Tell that to the Chinese factory workers slaves.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Tell that to the Chinese factory workers slaves.


 
In the West, for the third time.  Read the thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> In the West it has ceased to be the primary generator of capital, has it not?


 
That doesn't mean it is "over" and we live in a globalised world, it's not like we can ignore the rest of the world. Western multinationals operate industrial capitalism in other states.

And re: usury: It looks as though I was right.

*



			
				wiki said:
			
		


			Usury
		
Click to expand...

*



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> (pron.: /ˈjuːʒəri/[1][2]) is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans. Depending on the local laws or social mores, a loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates. According to some jurisdictions and customs, simply charging any interest at all can be considered usury.[3][4][5] Other terms used for usury or usurers include _loan shark_, as well as _Shylock_ which is sometimes used with an antisemitic connotation.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> In the West, for the third time. Read the thread.


Oh please. A late backtrack won't save your pasty white arse.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> In the West, for the third time. Read the thread.


 
you didn't say the west though did you?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> That doesn't mean it is "over" and we live in a globalised world, it's not like we can ignore the rest of the world. Western multinationals operate industrial capitalism in other states.
> 
> And re: usury: It looks as though I was right.


 
No it doesn't, you're quoting Wikipedia, get a grip.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.





frogwoman said:


> you didn't say the west though did you?


No he didn't.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you didn't say the west though did you?


 
Yes I did.  Are you mad?



phildwyer said:


> The point is that capitalism has mutated from an industrial to a financial form, in the West that is.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> No he didn't.


 
Yes I did.  Read the thread.



phildwyer said:


> The point is that capitalism has mutated from an industrial to a financial form, in the West that is.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, industrial wage-slavery is one phase, now over, through which capitalism has passed.


 
this is what you said.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Usury existed before _industrial _capitalism. But there's no significant difference between what the banks do today and what a usurer would have done in ancient Athens or medieval Florence. Well, the only significant difference is that they do a hell of a lot more of it today.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. They get round the ban in various ways, but it still makes their brand of capitalism less toxic than ours.


 
And here Phil outs himself as a complete ignoramus who doesn't even know what capitalism _is._


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is what you said.


 
Yes.  Having held the evidently futile and presumptuous opinion that my audience would have sufficient capacity of mind to recall that I had just said this:



phildwyer said:


> The point is that capitalism has mutated from an industrial to a financial form, in the West that is.


 
Do you see my point?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> We've been through this before, but just to remind newer readers that Jazzz is no anti-semite, as he has often said, and indeed is a Jew himself.
> 
> It is very important, really _very _important indeed, to separate the critique of money-lending from anti-semitism. Threads like this have the opposite effect.
> 
> You won't have read them, but there are plenty of Americans who'll argue that any critique of capitalism--not usury, but capitalism--is inherently anti-semitic. That's the road you're heading down here.


 
Again, you don't know what capitalism is. Do you really want to lose this argument yet again?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And here Phil outs himself as a complete ignoramus who doesn't even know what capitalism _is._


 
Oh Christ, the gang's all here now.

Bunch of loons that you are.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I think that's exactly what's happening.





phildwyer said:


> But the development of quantitative into qualitative change is a Hegelian, idealist piece of logic, and nothing to do with "Dialectical Materialism."
> 
> Indeed, the _aufhebung _to which you allude consists precisely in the renewed bestowal of practical power on non-material entities.


 


I’m afraid you are completely and utterly wrong there phildwer. Re-read your sources. (Though let me make my position clear. I think "Dialectical Materialism" is a complete load of bollocks - imported into Marxism by Engels as a direct steal from Hegel . Marx never referred to it , EVER, It is Not the same concept at all as his perfectly straightforward “Historical Materialism”). All the Stalinist "philosophers" loved Dialectical Materialism - just the sort of mumbo jumbo that could be used to justify every policy shift and "contradiction" ! "Quantity into Quality" is an absoluitely fundamental component of the bollocks of Dialectical Materialism, just as it is with the Hegelian Dialectic.

As mentioned above, Engels postulated three laws of dialectics from his reading of Hegel's Science of Logic Engels elucidated these laws in his work Dialectics of Nature:


The law of the unity and conflict of opposites;
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes;
The law of the negation of the negation
Lenin and lots of other Marxists ran with it too. It's still utter bollocks. A bad day for marxism, and rational socialist theory, when Engels decided to "sex up the theory" with this mumbo jumbo ! 

 Anyway, the point I was making, which I think you agree with, is that in contemporary advanced monopoly capitalism the financial sector has become so large and politically powerful that it is now "non-functional" from the point of the wider capitalist system - its "super rent deriving" parasitic feature, has always been present, previously kept in check through political/legal imposed limits, is now actually seriously retarding the future stability and growth of the entire system, stripping out value from the productive, real value producing, capitalist sectors to feed its limitless short termist , indeed completely irrational, greed. The well documented "hollowing out" and "financialisation" of the US economy over the last 30 years for instance has been quite astonishing. As it has in the UK. The Financial sector of capitalism is now very akin to a cancerous growth within capitalism itself.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yes. Having held the evidently futile and presumptuous opinion that my audience would have sufficient capacity of mind to recall that I had just said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see my point?


 
I don't think it has passed through that stage. Because for one thing, you cannot look at western capitalism in isolation from the rest of the world, western multinationals operate in the third world, iphones and the like are made by chinese workers for western corporations.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 25, 2013)

another thread ruined by dwyer


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> They were able to use what they earned, often just enough of it to keep them alive, sometimes considerably more. Some slaves owned slaves themselves.
> 
> You're equating capitalism with wage labor. But money accumulated through slavery can be invested as capital equally well, can't it?


 
She's quite right to equate capital with wage labour. Wage labour is kind of essential - the relationship between wage labour and capital is the very essence of capitalism.

Are you trolling or are you really so stupid as to believe usury and capitalism are one and the same? I feel sorry for your students prof.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think it has passed through that stage. Because for one thing, you cannot look at western capitalism in isolation from the rest of the world, western multinationals operate in the third world, iphones and the like are made by chinese workers for western corporations.


Besides there's still plenty of wage-slavery in the West. As usual phil is full of philshit.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

The financialisation has occurred mostly in the US and the UK, not Germany etc to the same extent.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I’m afraid you are completely and utterly wrong there phildwer. Re-read your sources. (Though let me make my position clear. I think "Dialectical Materialism" is a complete load of bollocks - imported into Marxism by Engels as a direct steal from Hegel . Marx never referred to it , EVER, It is Not the same concept at all as his perfectly straightforward “Historical Materialism”). All the Stalinist "philosophers" loved Dialectical Materialism - just the sort of mumbo jumbo that could be used to justify every policy shift and "contradiction" !


 
Yes, I know they loved it.  My point is that they were wrong to do so, for it is an idealist Hegelian, rather than a materialist Marxist, point of logic.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

I love the pure marx and the robot engels above. Of course, marx in his many millions of words often explicitly endorsed the same mechanical nonsense as Engels - that stuff cannot just be cut off/out, it needs to be dealt with - and not on the basis of the above pure marx and the robot engels .


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I feel sorry for your students prof.


 
I feel sorry for your profs, student.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Anyway, the point I was making, which I think you agree with, is that in contemporary advanced monopoly capitalism the financial sector has become so large and politically powerful that it is now "non-functional" from the point of the wider capitalist system - its "super rent deriving" parasitic feature, has always been present, previously kept in check through political/legal imposed limits, is now actually seriously retarding the future stability and growth of the entire system, stripping out value from the productive, real value producing, capitalist sectors to feed its limitless short termist , indeed completely irrational, greed. The well documented "hollowing out" and "financialisation" of the US economy over the last 30 years for instance has been quite astonishing. As it has in the UK. The Financial sector of capitalism is now very akin to a cancerous growth within capitalism itself.


 
Ah finally we get something - you are an adherent of the monopoly school then - despite this school rejecting marx and the law of value? Then arguing that the key is the operation of the law of value.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> another thread ruined by dwyer


 
Get off this thread Blagsta, you vile Nazi.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh Christ, the gang's all here now.
> 
> Bunch of loons that you are.


 
Your mum's a loon.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I feel sorry for your profs, student.


 
I'll give you that one


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 25, 2013)

Jazz has his anti Semitic arse handed to him on a plate, then up pops phildwyer with his 'just because it has been a central feature of anti Jewish slurs and pogromist propaganda for centuries, doesn't mean MY anti usery loonspuddery is antisemitic'.
You can dress it in a green shirt rather than a black one but its still stinks.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Anyway, the point I was making, which I think you agree with, is that in contemporary advanced monopoly capitalism the financial sector has become so large and politically powerful that it is now "non-functional" from the point of the wider capitalist system - its "super rent deriving" parasitic feature, has always been present, previously kept in check through political/legal imposed limits, is now actually seriously retarding the future stability and growth of the entire system, stripping out value from the productive, real value producing, capitalist sectors to feed its limitless short termist , indeed completely irrational, greed. The well documented "hollowing out" and "financialisation" of the US economy over the last 30 years for instance has been quite astonishing. As it has in the UK. The Financial sector of capitalism is now very akin to a cancerous growth within capitalism itself.


 
Aye.  _Aufhebung _innit. Under such circumstances, only the benighted or the self-interested could continue to adhere to a traditional materialist analysis, as we've clearly seen on this thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Jazz has his anti Semitic arse handed to him on a plate, then up pops phildwyer with his 'just because it has been a central feature of anti Jewish slurs and pogromist propaganda for centuries, doesn't mean MY anti usery loonspuddery is antisemitic'.
> You can dress it in a green shirt rather than a black one but its still stinks.


 
No.  What stinks is _your _attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism.  That's what's really dangerous.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No it doesn't, you're quoting Wikipedia, get a grip.


 
The merriam webster dictionary says I'm right as well:

usury
_archaic_ *:* interest
2
*:* the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; _especially_ *:* the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
3
*:* an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; _specifically_ *:* interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

The combined repertoire of the phil/jazzz erotology is missing only a named scapegoat. For now.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The merriam webster dictionary says I'm right as well:
> 
> usury
> _archaic_ *:* interest
> ...


 
No it doesn't, it says you're wrong. (I take it you accidently erased a 1 there).

So Mr. Webster says it's 'archaic' does he? Now, why would he say that I wonder? I bet he's dashed glad it's 'archaic' too.

It's not archaic, I'm using it now.  And number 2 says you're wrong too.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No. What stinks is _your _attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism. That's what's really dangerous.


 
I know your trolling but for fucks sake, anti-semitism is not linked to anti-capitalism, it has nothing to do with it, it doesn't even have anything to do with opposition to loan sharking/usury, the modern day "usurers" are not from any particular ethnic group and are officially at least (if not in practice) disapproved of, their activities are semi legal and have nowhere near the importance to the economy and creating value etc as for example the Ford Corporation does. They are as different as night and day. Henry Ford was an industrial capitalist and so were many of his other followers, anti-semitism is used to divert attention from a rational critique of capitalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The combined repertoire of the phil/jazzz erotology is missing only a named scapegoat. For now.


 
I've named the scapegoat--it's _YOU._


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> phil dwyer is used to divert attention from a rational critique of capitalism.


 
is more accurate


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I know your trolling but for fucks sake, anti-semitism is not linked to anti-capitalism, it has nothing to do with it


 
I know that.  You know that.  Delbert?  He don't know nothing. 

Others will tell him though.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> is more accurate


 
Get lost, Nazi scum.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's not archaic, I'm using it now. And number 2 says you're wrong too.


 
*ar·cha·ic *

/ärˈkāik/

Adjective

Very old or old-fashioned.
(of a word or a style of language) No longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No. What stinks is _your _attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism. That's what's really dangerous.


 
Bollocks. It's not linked to anti-capitalism, it's linked to a paranoid theory about ONE PART of capitalism, missing out all the other aspects to it, missing out wage-labour and the theory of surplus value, making out that everything would be fine if it wasn't for the banks and ignoring the capitalist system itself, which is the exploitation of the workers for surplus value.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *ar·cha·ic *
> 
> /ärˈkāik/
> 
> ...


 
 Let's try "especially:"



frogwoman said:


> 2
> *:* the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; _especially_ *:* the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I know that. You know that. Delbert? He don't know nothing.
> 
> Others will tell him though.


 
I am a marxist, that means I criticise all of capitalism, not just one part, and when I criticise the banking system I do it in a rational way and not a paranoid way which goes on about fraud and going back to the gold standard.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Let's try "especially:"


Why?We've just shown that you don't understand basic words such as 'archaic'. Time for you to leave the thread Dr.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> In the West it has ceased to be the primary generator of capital, has it not?


 
Not really, the west still consumes and imports huge amounts of industrially manufactured commodities, which underpins capitalism generally. This service sector, post-industrial economy we have in the UK is a niche within a globalised economy, only possible because "western" capital can use China as an export platform and then sell those commodities nack to the British/western markets that otherwise would be manufactured domestically. In the West or Britain, perhaps other sectors of the economy "generate more capital", the City probably does outweigh industry in GDP, but that industrial capacity in China does generate a huge amount of capital for what are nominally "western" multi-national enterprises, even though they aren't geographically in the West. It's not a "post-industrial" society because it's dependent upon an industrial base elsewhere in the world, and it's incredibly eurocentric to just pretend it doesn't exist and we've got beyond industrial capitalism because of de-industrialisation in parts of your own back yard. Even the likes of Daniel Bell didn't try making this argument you're making.

We haven't gone beyond industrial wage-slavery, we've just outsourced production to another part of the world, and heavily automated the bits of the industrial manufacturing economy that remain. Productivity for example in Germany, industrially, has gone up steadily all throughout the 80's and 90's, so the de-industrialisation arguments there focus not on the ability of German industry to make money, but the fact they've managed to increase productivity whilst steadily reducing the numbers of workers required to achieve it. Furthermore, big "German" companies use a supply chain that relies on outsourcing to parts of the third world, to take advantage of cheap labour, which again generates capital for the "West" although wage-slavery and the surplus value and all that horrible stuff takes place out of sight, out of mind, in the global south.

This means that the way in which "de-indutrialisation" is spoken of in that particular chunk of the 1st world refers to the proportion of people employed in industrial manufacturing jobs, and the growth of service sector as a proportion of the workforce, rather than the decline of overall industrial production. It's different in Britain, because we don't retain a large industrial manufacturing capacity like the Germans (although the end of british industry is often routinely overstated in arguments -we still manufacture a lot here on the sly) and the state decided in the 80's to replace that with a massive financial sector called the City of London and a low-productivity, low-wage, tertiary economy attached to it.



phildwyer said:


> Give us a break Delbert. You've had your fun, now please to go away Sir.


 
I'll let you know when i've finsihed having my fun. I'm snowed in so I'm going nowhere today


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the capitalist system itself, which is the exploitation of the workers for surplus value.


 
That's exactly what I'm saying it is.

Can't you see that, seriously?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No it doesn't, it says you're wrong. (I take it you accidently erased a 1 there).
> 
> So Mr. Webster says it's 'archaic' does he? Now, why would he say that I wonder? I bet he's dashed glad it's 'archaic' too.
> 
> It's not archaic, I'm using it now. And number 2 says you're wrong too.


 
"especially" meaning "usually"

the definition of the word gay is still technically "happy" (and until recently that was the first definition listed in the dictionary) but hardly anyone uses it to mean happy do they?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying it is.
> 
> Can't you see that, seriously?


 
No I can't you're going on about usury and stuff whereas the entire essence of capitalism is employer/employee relations.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why?We've just shown that you don't understand basic words such as 'archaic'.


 
Because, in this context, "especially" means "in special cases."

So to a literate person, both the allegedly 'archaic' meaning number 1, _and _the indisputably non-archaic meaning number 2 say that I am right.



butchersapron said:


> Time for you to leave the thread Dr.


 
For a bit, it's the middle of the night here.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Not really, the west still consumes and imports huge amounts of industrially manufactured commodities, which underpins capitalism generally. This service sector, post-industrial economy we have in the UK is a niche within a globalised economy, only possible because "western" capital can use China as an export platform and then sell those commodities nack to the British/western markets that otherwise would be manufactured domestically. In the West or Britain, perhaps other sectors of the economy "generate more capital", the City probably does outweigh industry in GDP, but that industrial capacity in China does generate a huge amount of capital for what are nominally "western" multi-national enterprises, even though they aren't geographically in the West. It's not a "post-industrial" society because it's dependent upon an industrial base elsewhere in the world, and it's incredibly eurocentric to just pretend it doesn't exist and we've got beyond industrial capitalism because of de-industrialisation in parts of your own back yard. Even the likes of Daniel Bell didn't try making this argument you're making.
> 
> We haven't gone beyond industrial wage-slavery, we've just outsourced production to another part of the world, and heavily automated the bits of the industrial manufacturing economy that remain. Productivity for example in Germany, industrially, has gone up steadily all throughout the 80's and 90's, so the de-industrialisation arguments there focus not on the ability of German industry to make money, but the fact they've managed to increase productivity whilst steadily reducing the numbers of workers required to achieve it. Furthermore, big "German" companies use a supply chain that relies on outsourcing to parts of the third world, to take advantage of cheap labour, which again generates capital for the "West" although wage-slavery and the surplus value and all that horrible stuff takes place out of sight, out of mind, in the global south.
> 
> ...


It's almost like you have to look at capital in its totality or some crazy shit like that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> For a bit, it's the middle of the night here.


See what being firm does? Take note new parents.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because, in this context, "especially" means "in special cases."
> 
> So to a literate person, both the allegedly 'archaic' meaning number 1, _and _the indisputably non-archaic meaning number 2 say that I am right.
> 
> ...


For an English prof your comprehension skills are pretty damn shit. Especially means in particular. Everyone knows that. Maybe you do too.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> For an English prof your comprehension skills are pretty damn shit. Especially means in particular. Everyone knows that. Maybe you do too.


 
That's what I fucking _said _it means.

You're all nutters on here.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That's what I fucking _said _it means.
> 
> You're all nutters on here.


If you did you chose just about the worst way there is to make that point. You said especially means "in special cases", as if it's a rare case. It's not. You prick.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No. What stinks is _your _attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism. That's what's really dangerous.


 
You're not anticapitalist. To be an anticapitalist you'd have to first know what capitalism _is._


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You said especially means "in special cases"


 
Darling, "in special cases" means the same thing as "in particular."  I'm sorry, but it just _does.  _No point crying over the matter, or disputing it, or being angry about it.  That's just the way it has to be I'm afraid.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Darling, "in special cases" means the same thing as "in particular." I'm sorry, but it just _does. _No point crying over the matter, or disputing it, or being angry about it. That's just the way it has to be I'm afraid.


You're raving. Get some sleep ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

Are any of these conspiraloons actually left-wing? Do any of them identify as left? As anti-capitalist? As anti-market? I can't actually think of a single on that does - i hear all sorts of _libertarian_, or _anti-capital but pro-market_ or _pro-real capitalism_ or a whole range of other confused idiocies, but none that i can think of who think they are on our side.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying it is.
> 
> Can't you see that, seriously?


 
But _how_ does capitalism exploit the workers?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The combined repertoire of the phil/jazzz erotology is missing only a named scapegoat. For now.


 
It's interesting that the magazine and mass movement (Father Coughlin's Social Justice) Jazzz said had all the answers to our problems _had we listened to it_ in the 1930s also published this kind of stuff:







_They're Jews and Jewesses. _It's not anti-semitic - it's anti-dictatorship - because these people were Stalin-fiends and wanted tyranny and used their Yiddish connections and culture as a vector.

It's interesting that the link Jazzz uses to insert further empty nonsense includes the description: 'The macroeconomic statistics hide the reality of life for ordinary Icelanders. Higher taxes, spending cuts and a wave of repossessions have left many distraught.'
It is - as close as we can see it - the anti-banking scenario Jazzz aspires to via the anti-semitic conspiracist ideas.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

because they don't give the workers the full value of their labour-power, they don't give them enough so they can buy back what they've produced, they take most of it for themselves and give them back a small amount. 

this has got nothing to do with usury


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are any of these conspiraloons actually left-wing? Do any of them identify as left? As anti-capitalist? As anti-market? I can't actually think of a single on that does - i hear all sorts of _libertarian_, or _anti-capital but pro-market_ or _pro-real capitalism_ or a whole range of other confused idiocies, but none that i can think of who think they are on our side.


 
The interesting bit is how the far-right here and now has to dress itself in rhetoric stolen off the 90's left, it's worded in this strange Rage Against the Machine-anarchist and Chomskyish platitudes, but it's actually just a buttress of conservatism, complete with xenophobia, barely concealed anti-semitic tropes rebranded, and all the other reactionary bollocks. It's all Bill Hicks and Noam Chomsky until suddenly "it's the wrong _type_ of capitalism" comes up, it's like clockwork, and then it turns into the fucking tea party. Positive Money are the ones on it most successfully over here.

In a way I'm almost glad it exists cox it's like a honey pot drawing away some of the worst cranks from the organised left. They can have 'em.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

"doubtful" ffs. and "jewesses"

what is the matter with these people, what kind of mind do you have to have to think in such a way.



was Coughlin the one who talked about "kike killers" or am i thinking of somebody else? i can't remember every word of the book i read about this stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Love and human partnership. What is it? Everyone talks about it, writes about it, watches films about it. But do we have any evidence that it actually exists other than certain vested interests saying it exists? Of course not, it's wholly fictitious. It's something Valentine's, anniversary and Mothering Sunday card makers produce and keep the system going. But they're essentially fraudsters organising them to keep the delusion going - all we have are pieces of pulped wood exchanged and cross-exchanged ritually. And always growing - why do the number of Valentine's Day card designs keep on growing? They're conjured out of thin air.
These card makers make immense profits - profiting out of the misery and loneliness of poor saps who send them to their Valentines, or people who are enslaved to the thought of feeling empty when they are alone, of having to be a couple. Can anyone actually tell me how love is not a completely fraudulent enterprise? Join the dots. No. The Truth will set you free.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Love and human partnership. What is it? Everyone talks about it, writes about it, watches films about it. But do we have any evidence that it actually exists other than certain vested interests saying it exists? Of course not, it's wholly fictitious. It's something Valentine's, anniversary and Mothering Sunday card makers produce and keep the system going. But they're essentially fraudsters organising them to keep the delusion going - all we have are pieces of pulped wood exchanged and cross-exchanged ritually. And always growing - why do the number of Valentine's Day card designs keep on growing? They're conjured out of thin air.
> These card makers make immense profits - profiting out of the misery and loneliness of poor saps who send them to their Valentines, or people who are enslaved to the thought of feeling empty when they are alone, of having to be a couple. Can anyone actually tell me how love is not a completely fraudulent enterprise? Join the dots. No. The Truth will set you free.


 
these people would, destroy this because caring about each other is a sign of weakness, destroy any kind of concern people have for one another, they tried to do this in the 30s by cutting the bonds that people had to each others neighbours and friends by the introduction of certain laws etc, making it impossible for them to have a sort of shared social life or community solidarity.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what is the matter with these people, what kind of mind do you have to have to think in such a way.


It's the standard palette of American populism. Communism or socialism is a massive threat to it - hence it has to be blocked and firewalled by being cast as _foreign_. I _doubt_ whether the "doubtful" were Jewish but it's a way of their saying we don't like these people who talk about class struggle.



> was Coughlin the one who talked about "kike killers" or am i thinking of somebody else? i can't remember every word of the book i read about this stuff


 
No the Kike Killer itself was a one-arm club (known as a billy in the US) a personal safety device patented and sold as such by another quasi-fascist James True who until the very end was a devout supporter of the German American Bund (wholly Nazified), strong supporter of Italy and Germany even after 1942. It was aimed at defending yourself from the Jewish criminal underworld operating in places like Detroit, Boston and New York. You got a discount if you were a subscriber to the magazine. He managed to not be arrested for most of the war until 1944, unlike the Minnesota truck drivers who were put away early, even though he claimed he was fighting against the "Talmudic dictatorship" to return America to a true republic. Incidentally he also was a proponent of _LOCAL BANKS!_
What Coughlin's movement did was at its height in 1938-1940 with the threat of war approaching attempt to purge Jews from _any_ kind of public office. Hence I believe one campaign fixated upon Jewish policemen - a tiny minority - as being 'killer kikes'. The racial taunt 'Christ-killer kike' was probably also shortened to 'killer kike' in a general sense.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US (or was) with people who were into stuff like legalising cannabis etc, as an "alternative" candidate.


 
Ron Paul's forums see Henry Ford's publications as a sensible source - because he was/is on the same side - against the Fed.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's interesting that the magazine and mass movement (Father Coughlin's Social Justice) Jazzz said had all the answers to our problems _had we listened to it_ in the 1930s also published this kind of stuff:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The 'doubtful' description is weird, did Ford catch the 'doubtfuls' eating bagels or something?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The 'doubtful' description is weird, did Ford catch the 'doubtfuls' eating bagels or something?


 
It's Coughlin not Ford, but yes it's sort of weird. It means they weren't Jewish and almost certainly white Americans but since their line in the ASU is in support of general worker-student joint struggle, they need to be sullied/dirtied. If they were black they would be 'Negro'.

The pointing out of 'doubtful' is precisely how anti-semitic conspiracism operates... if someone is behaving in a pro-banker/pro-Jewish ie communist or anti-racist fashion, their origins might show themselves as Jewish, hence it's better to be safe rather than sorry and consider them Crypto-Christians keeping their true faith hidden, or "converts".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's the standard palette of American populism. Communism or socialism is a massive threat to it - hence it has to be blocked and firewalled by being cast as _foreign_. I _doubt_ whether the "doubtful" were Jewish but it's a way of their saying we don't like these people who talk about class struggle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
that's absolutely nauseating.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

This might be a bit off topic but the talk about populist right-wing anti-capitalism reminds me of something else that I've noticed some Occupy people talking about what they call a 'resource-based economy'? The 'resource-based economy' idea seems to be some sort of a front/ideological spin-off of the Zeitgeist movement and its proponents' rhetoric seems very similar to what's being discussed here but they add rhetoric which is eerily similar to 20th Century 'Scientific Socialism'.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

That's exactly what it is. The SPGB in their only conscious bit of activism in the last 50 years have decided to hold joint events with these loons. Lots of past discussion on here.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the capitalist system itself, which is the exploitation of the workers for surplus value.


 


phildwyer said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying it is.
> 
> Can't you see that, seriously?





frogwoman said:


> No I can't you're going on about usury and stuff whereas the entire essence of capitalism is employer/employee relations.


 
You can't see that's what I'm saying here?  Really?



phildwyer said:


> Capitalism is the alienation of human activity in the illusory form of money, and the attribution of magical properties to that illusory form. Enslavement and proletarianization work equally well for expropriation, capital doesn't care much either way.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Love and human partnership. What is it? Everyone talks about it, writes about it, watches films about it. But do we have any evidence that it actually exists other than certain vested interests saying it exists? Of course not, it's wholly fictitious. It's something Valentine's, anniversary and Mothering Sunday card makers produce and keep the system going. But they're essentially fraudsters organising them to keep the delusion going - all we have are pieces of pulped wood exchanged and cross-exchanged ritually. And always growing - why do the number of Valentine's Day card designs keep on growing? They're conjured out of thin air.
> These card makers make immense profits - profiting out of the misery and loneliness of poor saps who send them to their Valentines, or people who are enslaved to the thought of feeling empty when they are alone, of having to be a couple. Can anyone actually tell me how love is not a completely fraudulent enterprise? Join the dots. No. The Truth will set you free.


 
Money and love are both human ideas, thus part of culture rather than nature.

Disaster always ensues when a part of culture is mistaken for and/or treated as a part of nature, which is what usury/capitalism does by pretending that money can reproduce autonomously.

Being a mechanism of naturalization, capital also makes this absurdly unnatural belief appear to be perfectly natural.

It's equally true of love, money or any other part of human culture: disaster results if they are regarded as natural.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that's absolutely nauseating.


 
One interesting thing about True is that one of his early associates was Edward F. Sullivan - also a strong supporter of the German-American Bund. He becomes the first Chief Investigator of the House Committee for the Investigation of Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1938 - and begins using reports and compilations of such lists - Jew, not Jew, Jew - as part of the basis of the investigations into Communism in Hollywood and the Federal Writers Project - particularly heavily examining the "foreign-born".

What's important in the general picture about the Fed conspiracy - which is what this OP is about - is how pro-American farmer, pro-American labourer it is. It becomes a central plank of the US isolationist movement - doing what phildwyer hopes will happen the merging of 'left' Democrats with 'one nation' Republicans.

So by 1941 you have its leaders in Congress such as John Rankin explaining that Ameica must continue to supply industrial products to Nazi Europe on the same footing as anti-Nazi footing. Because Jewish bankers "first crucified the German Republic and in doing so they created Hitler. He is their baby. Hitler never would have been heard of if it had not been for these elements swarming into Germany and undermining the German Republic."
He attacks support for anti-Nazi states as a plot of interventionists being manipulated by the "international" Jews who are "making the greatest blunder since the Crucifixion" by inviting anti-semitism upon them (as the Irish who refuse to denounce the IRA are inviting anti-Irish measures upon them etc etc). There's the constant stressing of the difference between "the international Jew, whether he is an international banker or an international Communist, and the American Jew who makes this his home, who is trying to build up and defend his country, and who must now suffer for the misconduct of these international Jews who are always stirring up trouble for them."

The second part of the anti-Federal Reserve conspiracism is international communist-banker collusion conspiracism (not used on boards like this for obvious reasons). Those nations deemed by phildwyer to be heading out of the clutches of banking and usury - Islamic ones and Eastern ones - are showing a way forward. So when class-based forces try to overcome this "non-usurious" system by social struggle (which might have spin off effects like the creation of "usury-based" fractional reserve banks) - they become useful idiots for the fraudster banks and potential fraudsters themselves.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's the standard palette of American populism. Communism or socialism is a massive threat to it - hence it has to be blocked and firewalled by being cast as _foreign_. I _doubt_ whether the "doubtful" were Jewish but it's a way of their saying we don't like these people who talk about class struggle.


 
It's got nothing to do with America.  Communism was constructed as Jewish throughout the world.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's got nothing to do with America. Communism was constructed as Jewish throughout the world.


 
I don't think he's arguing at all that anti-Semitic tropes are particular to right-wing American populism, just that they are prevalent.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Those nations deemed by phildwyer to be heading out of the clutches of banking and usury - Islamic ones and Eastern ones - are showing a way forward. So when class-based forces try to overcome this "non-usurious" system by social struggle (which might have spin off effects like the creation of "usury-based" fractional reserve banks) - they become useful idiots for the fraudster banks and potential fraudsters themselves.


 
Which "class-based forces" are these?  The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran?  Because I don't see any other "class-based forces" at work in the Islamic world.  The bitter experience of the Turkish urban/intellectual Left in the 70s, when they sent their cadres into the villages to lecture the peasants on materialism and class struggle, with the entirely predictable results we see today, should be a warning.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I don't think he's arguing at all that anti-Semitic tropes are particular to right-wing American populism, just that they are prevalent.


 
They're prevalent in just about everything in C19th and early C20th culture, once you start looking for them. Very prevalent in constructions of capitalism and communism alike, as in Hitler's notorious speech about the "two brothers, Moishe and Isidore..."

We don't need them in this discussion. Anyone trying to introduce them into this discussion should be excluded from it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It's got nothing to do with America. Communism was constructed as Jewish throughout the world.


 
By anti-semites maybe, the Stalinist states weren't above using anti-semitism for their own purposes though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Polish_political_crisis

Poland wasn't the only one, there was Ceaucescu's Romania and of course Stalin himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You can't see that's what I'm saying here? Really?


 
Where does the employer/the class who own/control the "means of production" come in to what you said?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Which "class-based forces" are these? The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran? Because I don't see any other "class-based forces" at work in the Islamic world. The bitter experience of the Turkish urban/intellectual Left in the 70s, when they sent their cadres into the villages to lecture the peasants on materialism and class struggle, with the entirely predictable results we see today, should be a warning.


 
What on earth are you talking about? Leftist groups played a key role in the Iranian revolution, albeit militarily they were eventually outmaneuvered by Islamists, left-wing groups and trade unions are still pretty active amongst the opposition and the Iranian regime continues to fear and persecute them.

Do you know anything about the history of Indonesia? Just why do you think that the US pushed Suharto to be as repressive as he was?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Yes. The truth will set you free! Let's stop wasting our time with this "fact" that money is regarded as natural, after all disaster has never resulted from when money is taken to be abnormal and unnatural like present day relations in tribal regions of Iran working by corvee, barter in early modern Europe, Ottoman Empire before the domination of financiers, Bhutan, Jonestown, rural programmes of the Great Leap Forward and beyond, serfdom in Tsarist Russia... oh wait. 
What is more important is to stop the disaster resulting from having regarded love and parternship as natural. In fact yes, why not: end all intimate human relationships now!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One interesting thing about True is that one of his early associates was Edward F. Sullivan - also a strong supporter of the German-American Bund. He becomes the first Chief Investigator of the House Committee for the Investigation of Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1938 - and begins using reports and compilations of such lists - Jew, not Jew, Jew - as part of the basis of the investigations into Communism in Hollywood and the Federal Writers Project - particularly heavily examining the "foreign-born".


 
Well, yes and no.  The second Red Scare (of the '50s rather than the '20s) made any criticism of capitalism taboo in the USA, largely by connecting such criticism with all manner of unconventional identities--effeminate men and masculine women were as conspicuously singled out as Jews were.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes. The truth will set you free! Let's stop wasting our time with this "fact" that money is regarded as natural, after all disaster has never resulted from when money is taken to be abnormal and unnatural like present day relations in tribal regions of Iran working by corvee, barter in early modern Europe, Ottoman Empire before the domination of financiers, Bhutan, Jonestown, rural programmes of the Great Leap Forward and beyond, serfdom in Tsarist Russia... oh wait.
> What is more important is to stop the disaster resulting from having regarded love and parternship as natural. In fact yes, why not: end all intimate human relationships now!


One more push to pre-capitalism comrades!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes. The truth will set you free! Let's stop wasting our time with this "fact" that money is regarded as natural, after all disaster has never resulted from when money is taken to be abnormal and unnatural like present day relations in tribal regions of Iran working by corvee, barter in early modern Europe, Ottoman Empire before the domination of financiers, Bhutan, Jonestown, rural programmes of the Great Leap Forward and beyond, serfdom in Tsarist Russia... oh wait.


 
Of course evil and oppression can take many forms. But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has _everywhere, _and _at all times, universally _been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion (Judaism very much included), and condemned on rational grounds by every major philosopher up to and of course including K. Marx. There are excellent reasons for that, as we are now learning.



sihhi said:


> What is more important is to stop the disaster resulting from having regarded love and parternship as natural. In fact yes, why not: end all intimate human relationships now!


 
Let's not regard love as natural, because this leads to homophobia and other unpleasantnesses. Let's regard it as cultural, which is what it is.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes. The truth will set you free! Let's stop wasting our time with this "fact" that money is regarded as natural, after all disaster has never resulted from when money is taken to be abnormal and unnatural like present day relations in tribal regions of Iran working by corvee, barter in early modern Europe, Ottoman Empire before the domination of financiers, Bhutan, Jonestown, rural programmes of the Great Leap Forward and beyond, serfdom in Tsarist Russia... oh wait.
> What is more important is to stop the disaster resulting from having regarded love and parternship as natural. In fact yes, why not: end all intimate human relationships now!


 
Given that Phildwyer seems to be lauding the economic policies of countries in the Middle-East where migrant workers are effectively treated as slaves I can see why Serfdom might hold some appeal for him.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

"The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran?" 


There were have it. _The bourgeoisie_ took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran. 
The mullahs in Iran are not the bourgeoisie! Get it right, people! 

On Turkey, class-based movements have existed in Ottoman Muslim territories since the 1860s, the account of the 1970s sounds clever but is, again, an empty falsification.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Honest, moral Cicero: "The result of the war against Britain is eagerly awaited, for the approaches to the island are known to be 'warded with wondrous massy walls.' It is also now ascertained that there isn't a grain of silver on the island nor any prospect of booty apart from captives, and I fancy you won't expect any of them to have been taught to read or play!"

Has anyone wondered why 'usury' and 'money changers' and 'financiers' have for so long been condemned by religious structures, but not the lords and ladies above? Stop wondering this, it doesn't matter.
Everyone has hated 'usury' forever, and still hates it above anything else - this is true and has mind-blowing importance. Karl Marx is anti-usury this is what makes him important - the fact that he's saying something thousands of others at the same time were also saying - or something.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

The Manifesto: Up with cultural love! Down with cultural money!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Where does the employer/the class who own/control the "means of production" come in to what you said?


 
I think the enemy is money (or rather usury) itself, not any group of human beings, whether defined by class, race or gender.

I think money controls the actions of the people who claim to "own" it, not _vice versa._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I think the enemy is money (or rather usury) itself, not any group of human beings, whether defined by class, race or gender.
> 
> I think money controls the actions of the people who claim to "own" it, not _vice versa._


 
ok what about the employers of the workers if we're not going to mention class? Where do they come in?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Honest, moral Cicero: "The result of the war against Britain is eagerly awaited, for the approaches to the island are known to be 'warded with wondrous massy walls.' It is also now ascertained that there isn't a grain of silver on the island nor any prospect of booty apart from captives, and I fancy you won't expect any of them to have been taught to read or play!"


 
What, against Cicero now is it? My word, you like the big game.

When asked what he thought of usury, Cicero replied: "What do you think of murder?"


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> ok what about the employers of the workers if we're not going to mention class? Where do they come in?


 
Didn't you get the memo, wage slavery was abolished, ages ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> ok what about the employers of the workers if we're not going to mention class? Where do they come in?


 
I think we are fast approaching the stage prophecized by Marx, when the proletariat becomes the universal class. I think humanity and money are confronting each other in stark, open opposition.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I think the enemy is money (or rather usury) itself, not any group of human beings, whether defined by class, race or gender.
> 
> I think money controls the actions of the people who claim to "own" it, not _vice versa._


 
so money, capitalism and usury are the same thing now?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Didn't you get the memo, wage slavery was abolished, ages ago.


 
Really? I didn't know that. Did you know that Charles II tried to stop usury but was thwarted?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I think we are fast approaching the stage prophecized by Marx, when the proletariat becomes the universal class. I think humanity and money are confronting each other in stark, open opposition.


 
Money isn't a living thing though and according to you it doesn't even exist!


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

So how are we going to abolish money then? Sounds about as doable as banning people from thinking about sex tbh.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran?"
> 
> 
> There were have it. _The bourgeoisie_ took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran.
> The mullahs in Iran are not the bourgeoisie! Get it right, people!


 
That _is _right. Like it or not (and I don't particularly), the bourgeoisie tend to be secular in the Islamic world, and the workers and peasants tend to be religious. You might want to ask yourself why that should be.



sihhi said:


> On Turkey, class-based movements have existed in Ottoman Muslim territories since the 1860s, the account of the 1970s sounds clever but is, again, an empty falsification.


 
In what is now Turkey, at least Anatolian Turkey, class-based movements were and are vanishingly rare outside the PKK-run areas. In Istanbul and environs they basically lost a civil war in the 70s, largely because of their secularism. As in Latin America, those socialist radicals who returned into mainstream politics after exile or prison were forced to accept the neo-classical economic model as a precondition. Pretty much a disaster all round.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That _is _right. Like it or not (and I don't particularly), the bourgeoisie tend to be secular in the Islamic world, and the workers and peasants tend to be religious. You might want to ask yourself why that should be.
> 
> 
> 
> In what is now Turkey, at least Anatolian Turkey, class-based movements were and are vanishingly rare outside the PKK-run areas. In Istanbul and environs they basically lost a civil war in the 70s, largely because of their secularism.


 
So the rulers of iran and the section of society that holds all the economic and political power aren't the bourgeoisie despite it being a capitalist state?

how does that work?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Money isn't a living thing though and according to you it doesn't even exist!


 
Precisely why it's much more important for humanity and love as partnership to confront each other in stark, open opposition. Love leads to homophobia!


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> In what is now Turkey, at least Anatolian Turkey, class-based movements were and are vanishingly rare outside the PKK-run areas. In Istanbul and environs they basically lost a civil war in the 70s, largely because of their secularism.


 
Do you think that it might also have something to do with the fact that in Turkey the US backed a series of anti-Communist military dictatorships which ruthlessly repressed leftist groups? This backtracking is a far cry from your claim that there are no class based forces in Turkey.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Money isn't a living thing though and according to you it doesn't even exist!


 
And yet it seems extremely powerful nonetheless.  Things that don't exist can often be very powerful.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Do you think that it might also have something to do with the fact that in Turkey the US backed a series of anti-Communist military dictatorships which ruthlessly repressed leftist groups?


 
Oh God yes. Not to mention paramilitaries like the Grey Wolves.  My point is that the Right was able to crush the Left by force (at a time when social forces in Istanbul actually _should _have favored socialism) because the Left abandoned the support of most of their natural constituency because of their patronizing, secularist attitude towards religion.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Precisely why it's much more important for humanity and love as partnership to confront each other in stark, open opposition. Love leads to homophobia!


 
I'm driving you mad here aren't I?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> So how are we going to abolish money then?


 
It's a tricky one isn't it?

But I reckon the best and easiest approach is to use calm reason and logic to demonstrate that, since it does not actually exist, its powers need not be feared. As I am doing here.

Anyway, we don't have to abolish money, just usury. Which since usury is so counter-intuitive and weird to most people, ought to be relatively easy. It's only been generally tolerated for a couple of centuries.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 25, 2013)

lol


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Anyway, we don't have to abolish money, just usury. Which since usury is so counter-intuitive and weird to most people, ought to be relatively easy. It's only been generally tolerated for a couple of centuries.


 
wrong.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> What on earth are you talking about? Leftist groups played a key role in the Iranian revolution, albeit militarily they were eventually outmaneuvered by Islamists, left-wing groups and trade unions are still pretty active amongst the opposition and the Iranian regime continues to fear and persecute them.


 
My point is that, much as in Turkey, the Iranian Left lost when it should have won.  I'm trying to suggest that its secularism was a major reason for its defeat.



J Ed said:


> Do you know anything about the history of Indonesia? Just why do you think that the US pushed Suharto to be as repressive as he was?


 
I assume to kill all the Communists, no?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

the Jazzz of political economy


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> My point is that, much as in Turkey, the Iranian Left lost when it should have won. I'm trying to suggest that its secularism was a major reason for its defeat.



??????????


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Ah yes the "patronizing, secularist attitude towards religion" another phildwyer fabrication alongside mullahs are not part of the bourgeoisie.

The demands were always for real separation of church and state (which has never been won, and has been constantly bulldozed by a laicist state-controlled religious regime), for the right of minority Allawites to establish their own centres free on an equal basis with Sunni state religious (still, sadly not won), for the defence of women against dowry and bride price (a battle that's still not been won).

It's a myth - interestingly used by Islamists who are also very keen on conspiracism about banking and instead promoting _faizsiz kazanc_ - non-interest rewards - ie Islamic finance.

"The Right was able to crush the Left by force" because of a military coup. The 1980s and beyond era is a fabrication as well the majority of released left-wing prisoners did _not_ accept any kind of neo-classical economic model. If anything it was still as broadly Marxist-Leninist as before. When Gorbachev visited Ankara in the middle of 1995, there was a massive barricade-heavy protest against him for having inserted market forces into the Soviet Union (revisionism). On economic aspects, the manifestos and programmes throughout the 1990s were, broadly, a standard stagist state socialism - national control and ownership of all sectors of the economy based via non-compensation of former owners.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So the rulers of iran and the section of society that holds all the economic and political power aren't the bourgeoisie despite it being a capitalist state?
> 
> how does that work?


 
They government did not expropriate the bourgeoisie, that's how.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer always states that secularism is/was the problem in the Iranian and Turkish (and wider middle East and/or Eastern left), but never explains just what degree of religious chauvinism would have been the correct amount to propel the Turkish and Iranian left to (an apparently otherwise assured) victory (presumably to form another PDRY).


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah finally we get something - you are an adherent of the monopoly school then - despite this school rejecting marx and the law of value? Then arguing that the key is the operation of the law of value.


 
Nope fraid not.    The point I was making is  much more simple, ie, that the operations of the  financial sector of capitalism is normally "functional" for the system as a whole, even though  screwing superprofits for sure, for the essential capitalist role of organising and facilitating the circulation of capital, credit, investment, etc, etc. However there appears to have been a qualitative change in the role of the financial sector over the last 30 years or so, as it has in particular bought  control of the political process in many key states, and consequently brought about a radically unregulated playing field for itself. It now appears to be functioning as a completely out of control, increasingly parasitic, and systemically destructive, rogue component of the capitalist "sectoral mix". It has now because of its disproportionate size and power a disfunctional role analagous to a cancerous tumour. A rather empirical observation - unlinked to some overarching theory. Good try though.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> They government did not expropriate the bourgeoisie, that's how.


 
I don't know how that makes any difference? There is still a class of people being exploited for wage labour and a class of people who are making profits out of that labour?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ah yes the "patronizing, secularist attitude towards religion" another phildwyer fabrication alongside mullahs are not part of the bourgeoisie.
> 
> The demands were always for real separation of church and state (which has never been won, and has been constantly bulldozed by a laicist state-controlled religious regime), for the right of minority Allawites to establish their own centres free on an equal basis with Sunni state religious (still, sadly not won), for the defence of women against dowry and bride price (a battle that's still not been won).


 
You make it sound like it's _my _fault.

Look, being a middle-class Westerner, I automatically hate the Islamists, and they automatically hate me back. It's not even an issue--and that fact itself tells you how determined by class attitudes to religion are in such places.

But the current governments of Iran and Turkey are democratically elected, and genuinely enjoy widespread popular support--_particularly among the natural constituencies of the Left._

Why do you think that is exactly?



sihhi said:


> "The Right was able to crush the Left by force" because of a military coup.


 
An urban civil war really, a very nasty and dirty one too. But the point is, once again, that the Right could only do that because the Left had abdicated much of its popular support due to its secularism.



sihhi said:


> The 1980s and beyond era is a fabrication as well the majority of released left-wing prisoners did _not_ accept any kind of neo-classical economic model.


 
I didn't say they did. I said that accepting that model was a precondition of them returning to mainstream politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Nope fraid not. The point I was making is much more simple, ie, that the operations of the financial sector of capitalism is normally "functional" for the system as a whole, even though screwing superprofits for sure, for the essential capitalist role of organising and facilitating the circulation of capital, credit, investment, etc, etc. However there appears to have been a qualitative change in the role of the financial sector over the last 30 years or so, as it has in particular bought control of the political process in many key states, and consequently brought about a radically unregulated playing field for itself. It now appears to be functioning as a completely out of control, increasingly parasitic, and systemically destructive, rogue component of the capitalist "sectoral mix". It has now because of its disproportionate size and power a disfunctional role analagous to a cancerous tumour. A rather empirical observation - unlinked to some overarching theory. Good try though.


 
Well why did you describe the current set-up as "contemporary advanced monopoly capitalism"? Do you agree with your own description or not? Above you talk about the role of the financial sector and so on, which is fine, but you don't connect it with any analysis of or even basic description of monoploy - in any sector at all. Why use the term at all if you're not going to?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> phildwyer always states that secularism is/was the problem in the Iranian and Turkish (and wider middle East and/or Eastern left), but never explains just what degree of religious chauvinism would have been the correct amount to propel the Turkish and Iranian left to (an apparently otherwise assured) victory (presumably to form another PDRY).


 
Anything would have been better than the contemptuous, pre-Dawkinsite scorn that was heaped on religion by the 70s Left, throughout the world in fact.

Completely needlessly alienated billions of people.

Even Ataturk went too far... banning the _fez _ffs...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So the rulers of iran and the section of society that holds all the economic and political power aren't the bourgeoisie despite it being a capitalist state?
> 
> how does that work?


 
It's because they are _religious. _This means that even when they have massive portfolios in firms - they aren't capitalists, they retain a bond with _the people_ who are also religious, hence the bourgeoisie are the people who don't like (women being forced) to wear veils. Deeply Orientalist, close to racist, stuff at heart. Don't you go dare accusing non-racists of any aspect of racism in what they think, that's damaging and hurts genuine anti-racists like Cynthia McKinney etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Nope fraid not. The point I was making is much more simple, ie, that the operations of the financial sector of capitalism is normally "functional" for the system as a whole, even though screwing superprofits for sure, for the essential capitalist role of organising and facilitating the circulation of capital, credit, investment, etc, etc. However there appears to have been a qualitative change in the role of the financial sector over the last 30 years or so, as it has in particular bought control of the political process in many key states, and consequently brought about a radically unregulated playing field for itself. It now appears to be functioning as a completely out of control, increasingly parasitic, and systemically destructive, rogue component of the capitalist "sectoral mix". It has now because of its disproportionate size and power a disfunctional role analagous to a cancerous tumour.


 
And like such a tumor, it will eventually transform the nature of its host.

As I mentioned before, "deregulation" is code for "letting the banks do whatever the fuck they want."

Now we're finding out what they want.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's because they are _religious. _This means that even when they have massive portfolios in firms - they aren't capitalists, they retain a bond with _the people_ who are also religious, hence the bourgeoisie are the people who don't like (women being forced) to wear veils. Deeply Orientalist, close to racist, stuff at heart. Don't you go dare accusing non-racists of any aspect of racism in what they think, that's damaging and hurts genuine anti-racists like Cynthia McKinney etc.


 
Don't flatter yourself, it doesn't hurt, it's just demonstrably false.

The American religious Right plays the same game as the mullahs, if that helps.

That is to say, they exploit a literalistic form of religion as a means to political power.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's because they are _religious. _This means that even when they have massive portfolios in firms - they aren't capitalists, they retain a bond with _the people_ who are also religious, hence the bourgeoisie are the people who don't like (women being forced) to wear veils. Deeply Orientalist, close to racist, stuff at heart. Don't you go dare accusing non-racists of any aspect of racism in what they think, that's damaging and hurts genuine anti-racists like Cynthia McKinney etc.


 
but when the big bourgeois in israel and new york do the same shit it's proof of how iniquitous the jews and the jewish faith are in general rather than the ruling elites the world over exploiting workers and cynically using religion for its purposes, whether that religion is judaism, islam or christianity. 

not saying phil's doing that (pretty sure he doesn't believe any of the stuff he's saying tbh) but it's often what's argued by the people who take this line.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't know how that makes any difference? There is still a class of people being exploited for wage labour and a class of people who are making profits out of that labour?


 
You asked how it could be that a bourgeoisie opposed to the government exists in Iran. The answer is because the government refrains from confiscating the bourgeoisie's wealth, despite being opposed by it--opposed by fair means and foul, and rather more of the latter. Same as in Venezuela, basically.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You asked how it could be that a bourgeoisie opposed to the government exists in Iran. The reason is because the government allows it to, by refraining from confiscating its wealth.


 
So the government aren't part of the bourgeoisie then? There are no government members who also serve on boards of directors (on state-controlled or private firms), have multiple investments, stocks and shares, etc? There are no mullahs who have business interests at home or abroad? There are no mullahs who own multiple properties etc and don't need to work?

I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe. If the likes of Ahmedinejad etc aren't part of the bourgeoisie despite being in control of a capitalist state then what are they?

Fully prepared to believe that part of the bourgeoisie oppose the government, as part of the bourgeoisie oppose the cameron gov't over here, but do you really think they'd be protesting in the streets about it? and be the only ones doing so?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

The lies and exaggeration just know no end. We're now at 'contemptuous, pre-Dawkinsite scorn' - this was a crime of the left throughout the 1970s throughout the world. In fact the 1970s see a rise of trends like Euro-Communism that promise in some parts to retain religious social services and education, all the way to state support and sustenance of the Catholic church and Buddhist orders in unified Vietnam. It sees cooperation between Tudeh and the Islamists after 1975 all the to the middle of 1979 in Iran. The Burmese Communists start further pressing religious claims against the military alongside the national rebel movements. It sees the return of Cuban-Vatican relations etc etc. I'm sure there are plenty other arguments.

The main reason the governments in Turkey (but also places like Brazil) have been able to stay in power - is as a side-effect of the shift in international capitalism allowing certain industrial centres to become closer to the multinational core. Irrelevant to OP about banking and usury, but there we are. I am not an expert on the current situation of Iranian economy or public opinion - notoriously skewed depending on the source, but the popularity of the Iranian system is on a steady trend downwards even as the religious conservatism is being pushed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

Dwyer: taffboy for pseuds.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Nope fraid not. The point I was making is much more simple, ie, that the operations of the financial sector of capitalism is normally "functional" for the system as a whole, even though screwing superprofits for sure, for the essential capitalist role of organising and facilitating the circulation of capital, credit, investment, etc, etc. However there appears to have been a qualitative change in the role of the financial sector over the last 30 years or so, as it has in particular bought control of the political process in many key states, and consequently brought about a radically unregulated playing field for itself. It now appears to be functioning as a completely out of control, increasingly parasitic, and systemically destructive, rogue component of the capitalist "sectoral mix". It has now because of its disproportionate size and power a disfunctional role analagous to a cancerous tumour. A rather empirical observation - unlinked to some overarching theory. Good try though.


 
Actually the financial system has _appeared_ dysfunctional in terms of the wider capitalist economy but in many ways it's been the only thing keeping it afloat. The 'fraud' etc, along with corporate tax breaks etc has been the only thing keeping profits above the level at which the economy collapses. Your lack of a link to an over-arching theory is what makes it impossible for you to see this.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

_Hurts_ doesn't mean feelings - damages the anti-racism or whatever they're doing.
"you vile Nazi" "Nazi scum"... those _are_ some feelings - who said them?
"What stinks is your attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism" (phildwyer against people with a grip on the fact that there are parts to a capital class (land-based, financial - _the banks!_, industrial) Hmmm....

What's _demonstrably false_? (Your go). That the mullahocracy are not part of an owning class?
That's the claim by separating out: "The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran?"


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _Hurts_ doesn't mean feelings - damages the anti-racism or whatever they're doing.
> "you vile Nazi" "Nazi scum"... those _are_ some feelings - who said them?


 
More to the point: _why_ did I say them?

I didn't start that one, I was started on. 

ETA: Oh I see what you mean.  Fair enough, _touche _etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> wrong.


phildwyer

Usury (before banks existed so was usually small scale, semi-legal activity) was tolerated by feudal monarchs because they also had need of their services from time to time and by restricting the access of Jews to other professions and placing restrictions on where they could work they forced them into being peddlers or usurers. However it's not like these ruling elites never borrowed money from Christian moneylenders or indeed _from each other_. While jews acquired a reputation for being moneylenders because of the restrictions on the other work they were allowed to do they were hardly the only ones doing it. Its not true to say it was never tolerated, it was.

If usury had only been tolerated in the last couple of centuries and previously had been despised by everyone why was it allowed to continue? Surely something like jesus's overturning the moneylenders tables (for example) was also a protest at the acceptability of it, even in holy places?

There was also much worse shit than usury going on as well.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "What stinks is your attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism" (phildwyer against people with a grip on the fact that there are parts to a capital class (land-based, financial - _the banks!_, industrial) Hmmm....


 
Well, how would you describe what's happened to the Western financial "sector," as we used laughingly to call it, over the last 30 years?

Has it not taken over the "economy," and indeed society as a whole, and re-configured them to suit its own interests?  Is this not an epochal shift, a qualitative change in the nature of capitalism?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Usury (before banks existed so was usually small scale, semi-legal activity) was tolerated by feudal monarchs because they also had need of their services from time to time and by restricting the access of Jews to other professions and placing restrictions on where they could work they forced them into being peddlers or usurers. However it's not like these ruling elites never borrowed money from Christian moneylenders or indeed _from each other_. While jews acquired a reputation for being moneylenders because of the restrictions on the other work they were allowed to do they were hardly the only ones doing it. Its not true to say it was never tolerated, it was.


 
I said "generally tolerated," that is, tolerated in general. Usury never has been until the last two centuries, certainly not since ancient times.

As a matter of fact, usury hasn't been _completely _tolerated until the last 10 years or so, when most legal restrictions on interest rates have finally been abandoned, at least in the USA.



frogwoman said:


> If usury had only been tolerated in the last couple of centuries and previously had been despised by everyone why was it allowed to continue? Surely something like jesus's overturning the moneylenders tables (for example) was also a protest at the acceptability of it, even in holy places?


 
Of course it was, that's what I'm saying. And of course it was often banned, and never generally tolerated, until recently. It was allowed to continue sporadically, often underground. That's what I'm saying too.



frogwoman said:


> There was also much worse shit than usury going on as well.


 
Actually, many people in many periods have disagreed with you there. Usury has regularly been described as the very worst thing in the world--worse than murder, death, hell, the devil etc.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

(((( people who use every aspect of international Jewry finance conspiracism for pointless ends, but change the Jewish financiers to all financiers usurers, to deepen the pool of conspiracist ideas - the pool from which 'anti-International Jewry' ideas mutate and grow ))))


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

We're to understand that what's driving the worldwide economy is this moral degeneration that is emerging at around 200 years (guess what the same time as the rise of organised secularism), which means that usury just becomes more tolerated from this point onwards whereas it was apparently not tolerated before. Who tolerated it least? the feudal and religious systems. _Money is our main enemy!_


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Anyone can see the financial sector has not taken over the Western (very interlinked to the global) economy, nor has it taken over Western society as a whole - assuming this means the industrial and service sector. Ludicrous claims.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The financial sector has not taken over the Western (very interlinked to the global) economy, nor has it taken over Western society as a whole - assuming this means the industrial and service sector.


Don't you get it, he doesn't mean literally, he means..... symbolically. Witches. Usury. Witches. Satan. GOD


See? Simple.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well, how would you describe what's happened to the Western financial "sector," as we used laughingly to call it, over the last 30 years?
> 
> Has it not taken over the "economy," and indeed society as a whole, and re-configured them to suit its own interests? Is this not an epochal shift, a qualitative change in the nature of capitalism?


 
No.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What's _demonstrably false_? (Your go). That the mullahocracy are not part of an owning class?


 
No, what I thought was the racist aspersion, but maybe I was mistaken.

Anyway, I daresay there's plenty of corruption among the mullahs, though it's still significant that usury is ethically condemned, even if hypocrisy abounds.

I'm saying that there is _also _a Westernized, secular bourgeoisie that opposes the regime.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyone can see the financial sector has not taken over the Western (very interlinked to the global) economy, nor has it taken over Western society as a whole - assuming this means the industrial and service sector. Ludicrous claims.


 
Think about them.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> We're to understand that what's driving the worldwide economy is this moral degeneration that is emerging at around 200 years (guess what the same time as the rise of organised secularism), which means that usury just becomes more tolerated from this point onwards whereas it was apparently not tolerated before. Who tolerated it least? the feudal and religious systems. _Money is our main enemy!_


 
_Usury_ is our main enemy.

It's becoming increasingly difficult not to see this. I don't know how you manage it.

Also, it has been recognized as our main enemy in every era other than the modern, and in every place other than the West.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Don't you get it, he doesn't mean literally, he means..... symbolically. Witches. Usury. Witches. Satan. GOD


 
Silence, fool. The last thing this thread needs is more of your babbling.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> (((( people who use every aspect of international Jewry finance conspiracism for pointless ends, but change the Jewish financiers to all financiers usurers, to deepen the pool of conspiracist ideas - the pool from which 'anti-International Jewry' ideas mutate and grow ))))


 
Stop it.

Stop identifying anti-capitalism with anti-semitism.

Yes you are.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Silence, fool. The last thing this thread needs is more of your babbling.


My babble is as a gentle brook to your mighty river of bullshit. Do carry on, it's kinda heartwarming to see a dead horse being so remorselessly flogged.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Let's take Ayatollah Ali Rafsanjani, the former President, his _personal_ wealth is estimated at least 10 trillion rial $1.2billion - wealth from banking (Lord! No!) aswell as farming aswell as oil and gas. Take a figure like Ayatollah Mohamed Ali Taskhiri. He is Islamic Culture and Communications Organization - doing stuff like textbooks. Forbes estimated him at _over $300mil back in 2003_. It has grown now. Individual moral weakness a fiddled account here or there is not really relevant to the case of their being the bourgeoisie. The so-called 'secular' bourgeoisie only wants to transform this wholly capitalist regime so that it allows more interaction with the West, more options for women to enter the workforce, and to stop pointless policing of non-issues (officers handing roses for dressing fully modestly, WTF?), wants to stop Iranian students prefering to study abroad so they can do things that are considered illegal in Iran.
_It's significant that usury in Iran is ethically condemned in Iran._
_Fight aspersions of racism! Don't fight things that directly allow racism to breed!_


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The lies and exaggeration just know no end. We're now at 'contemptuous, pre-Dawkinsite scorn' - this was a crime of the left throughout the 1970s throughout the world.


 
Billions, literally billions of people who would otherwise have supported the Left have been needlessly alienated by (most of) its militant, doctrinaire materialism and secularism, throughout the world, since the French Revolution.

Think about what that means for a second.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Let's take Ayatollah Ali Rafsanjani, the former President, his _personal_ wealth is estimated at least 10 trillion rial $1.2billion - wealth from banking (Lord! No!) aswell as farming aswell as oil and gas. Take a figure like Ayatollah Mohamed Ali Taskhiri. He is Islamic Culture and Communications Organization - doing stuff like textbooks. Forbes estimated him at _over $300mil back in 2003_. It has grown now. Individual moral weakness a fiddled account here or there is not really relevant to the case of their being the bourgeoisie. The so-called 'secular' bourgeoisie only wants to transform this wholly capitalist regime so that it allows more interaction with the West, more options for women to enter the workforce, and to stop pointless policing of non-issues (officers handing roses for dressing fully modestly, WTF?), wants to stop Iranian students prefering to study abroad so they can do things that are considered illegal in Iran.


 
What makes you think I'd disagree with any of this, or find it remotely surprising news?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Billions, literally billions of people who would otherwise have supported the Left have been needlessly alienated by (most of) its militant, doctrinaire materialism and secularism, throughout the world, since the French Revolution.
> 
> Think about what that means for a second.


A second is worthwhile. Longer would be a waste of time.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _It's significant that usury in Iran is ethically condemned in Iran._


 
Why don't you think that's significant?

It's one thing to hypocritically tolerate usury, quite another to openly encourage it.

Because the former acknowledges the logic of the ethical objection.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, what I thought was the racist aspersion, but maybe I was mistaken.
> 
> Anyway, I daresay there's plenty of corruption among the mullahs, though it's still significant that usury is ethically condemned, even if hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> I'm saying that there is _also _a Westernized, secular bourgeoisie that opposes the regime.


 
the religious section of the bourgeoisie might be religious, but they're still part of the bourgeoisie. In terms of their relationship to the means of production what they believe is neither here nor there frankly.

thats my point, not that the secular bourgeoisie don't exist. And they were hardly the ones being massacred in the streets were they?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the religious section of the bourgeoisie might be religious, but they're still part of the bourgeoisie. In terms of their relationship to the means of production what they believe is neither here nor there frankly.


Doesn't explain the many w/c religious folks who vote for "bourgeoisie" parties.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the religious section of the bourgeoisie might be religious, but they're still part of the bourgeoisie. In terms of their relationship to the means of production what they believe is neither here nor there frankly.


 
Phil's an idealist though - what they believe is _all _that matters. I suspect he's also a closet post-modernist.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Doesn't explain the many w/c religious folks who vote for "bourgeoisie" parties.


 
I'm not trying to explain it, I'm pointing out that somebody's relationship to the means of production doesn't change because of what beliefs they had.

Engels owned a factory ffs


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Doesn't explain the many w/c religious folks who vote for "bourgeoisie" parties.


 
Are there any other parties _to _vote for? (Genuine question, I know sod all about these countries)


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not trying to explain it, I'm pointing out that somebody's relationship to the means of production doesn't change because of what beliefs they had.
> 
> Engels owned a factory ffs


You might not think you are, but that statement imply several causal relationships, one of which is that class trumps religious belief overall. In my reading at least.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You might not think you are, but that statement imply several causal relationships, one of which is that class trumps religious belief overall. In my reading at least.


 
I'm not implying anything, phil's argument was that the Iranian government can't be part of the bourgeois class because of their religious views, I'm pointing out that they can.

That's saying nothing about what individuals may or may not do - their religious beliefs clearly do in some cases inform their social policies (within the constraints of capital)


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I suspect he's also a closet post-modernist.


 
I think postmodernists like Baudrillard and Lyotard give a basically accurate description of a situation they originally deplored, but came to accept as natural, rather than cultural, when they saw the revolutionary aspirations of their youth so cruelly dashed against the rocks of history.

The problem isn't with the accuracy of their description, but with the ethics of their response to it.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are there any other parties _to _vote for? (Genuine question, I know sod all about these countries)


What countries? I was talking about modern European contexts btw. Not sure what the story is elsewhere, suspect there's a global tendency for religiosity and voting less lefty to be correlated.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not implying anything, phil's argument was that the Iranian government can't be part of the bourgeois class because of their religious views, I'm pointing out that they can.


Sorry, I see your point, you were on about Iran specifically.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Engels owned a factory ffs


 
The profits of which he used to support Marx while he wrote _Capital._ Talk about producing your own gravedigger.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sorry, I see your point, you were on about Iran specifically.


 
And clearly within the constraints of the capitalist state their religious beliefs do inform their agendas for that state. There's also a section of the ruling class that are opposed to it, but plenty that aren't.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

why is this pseud getting indulged? he's talking through his arse.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The profits of which he used to support Marx while he wrote _Capital._ Talk about producing your own gravedigger.


 
My point is he didn't stop being a member of that class just because of his beliefs tho.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

I don't know about the Middle-East, but there is definitely a degree of truth to what phildwyer is saying about the left squandering opportunities with militant anti-clericalism during the 2nd Spanish Republic. Still, militant anti-cleircalism was a trap that, considering the behaviour of the Catholic Church and the popular reaction of much of the working-class to that behaviour, it would have been very difficult for them not to fall into. While I think that state atheism was a historic mistake, it didn't come out of nowhere, and the harshness of revolutionary anti-clericalism more often than not was dependent on the extent to which religion was used as a tool of repression by the previous regime.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Can someone remind me who separated out and asserted: "The bourgeoisie who took to the streets against the mullahs in Iran?"


No one openly encourages 'usury' because 'usury' as a meaningful concept it doesn't make sense in most places and certainly not for a twenty-first century industrial, capitalist state like Iran.

But Iran has every nut and bolt in Western capitalism - although some parts might be smaller/larger compared to others - because of various historical developments. Insurance markets, free-trade zones with different financial arrangements (like Jersey say), a series of state-capitalised banks (like our RBS say), a series of private banks, credit default swaps, a newly developing mortgage sector (just like Turkey in that respect), an extensive stock exchange, an Iran Mercantile Exchange a futures exchange that organises purchases and sales of primary products including agriculture, minerals as well as oil and gas. 

Islamic points - 1 some of the state banks and private banks do Islamic finance - they provide interest by re-investment so that it is not termed interest, all the financial products are basically classed as shariah-acceptable and Islamic by being rubber stamped by the regulator. 2 Friday is the holiday day because of custom. That's pretty much it.

Is insurance a form of 'usury'? What a meaningless concept usury is in 2013.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> My point is he didn't stop being a member of that class just because of his beliefs tho.


 
Which proves that political beliefs are not determined by class.

There is after all no logical contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The logical contradiction is between capital and labor, and those powers are not necessarily incarnated in social classes.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No one openly encourages 'usury' because 'usury' as a meaningful concept it doesn't make sense in most places and certainly not for a twenty-first century industrial, capitalist state like Iran.


 
The condemnation of usury makes ethical sense in Iran, that's why they do it.  It may not make pragmatic sense, but then they are conditioned to perceive ethics and pragmatics as contradictory, unlike Westerners, who cannot as a rule differentiate between the two.


----------



## 8den (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Silence, fool. The last thing this thread needs is more of your babbling.


 
It helps you read this in a Ming the Merciless voice.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> why is this pseud getting indulged? he's talking through his arse.


 
Can we all agree to ignore Delbert?  Ta.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Which proves that political beliefs are not determined by class.
> 
> There is after all no logical contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The logical contradiction is between capital and labor


 
isn't that the same thing?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I don't know about the Middle-East, but there is definitely a degree of truth to what phildwyer is saying about the left squandering opportunities with militant anti-clericalism during the 2nd Spanish Republic. Still, militant anti-cleircalism was a trap that, considering the behaviour of the Catholic Church and the popular reaction of much of the working-class to that behaviour, it would have been very difficult for them not to fall into. While I think that state atheism was a historic mistake, it didn't come out of nowhere, and the harshness of revolutionary anti-clericalism more often than not was dependent on the extent to which religion was used as a tool of repression by the previous regime.


 
The point made was _billions of people _alienated by 'secularism', then scrubbed to 'militant secularism'. All from the French Revolution onwards. _It makes no sense at all. _Were religious left-wing movements like the German Peasant's War or the Far Left in the English Civil War successful? No. They weren't they failed, they collapsed. The claim is maybe that the 1848 Revolution in Germany would have been successful if it had a religious thrust. But which one Protestant or Catholic? 
It's only the rise of secularism and _freedom for athiests _that allows the interreligious disputes to die down. Some religionists claim that peace between competing Christian religious branches is due to the calmness and serenity provided by prayer etc, instead of common alliance against the 'freethinking' secularist rise.
On militant anti-clericalism during the 2nd Spanish Republic, there's none of any meaningful size until the coup and the civil war started by that side. The priests were killed as supporters of the fascists - families and children unharmed.
There was no state atheism in the Second Republic 1931-1936 - simply that state schools would no longer accept Catholic priests as teachers that would propagate against the Republic (the Catholic Church stung by having to pay tax) - that's it - it's basic secularism not atheism.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> isn't that the same thing?


 
No.  Proles and bourgs are social classes, capital and labor are abstract concepts.

They coincide in some historical eras, but not in others.  Not in ours, for example.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Can we all agree to ignore Delbert? Ta.


 
you are talking shit though. A consistent stream of bollocks. Started with "the era of wage-slavery has now passed" and now we're at "the theocratic elite in Iran is in not related to the bourgeoisis in any way shape or form" and at every stage inbetween you've not let up. It's a bullshit frenzy. Just words, empty words. Usury ffs.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Were religious left-wing movements like the German Peasant's War or the Far Left in the English Civil War successful? No.


 
Yes. It took a couple of centuries, but they were--their aims were achieved. I doubt anyone will ever say that about the materialist revolutions of the twentieth century.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The claim is maybe that the 1848 Revolution in Germany would have been successful if it had a religious thrust.


 
If you want an example, the Mexican Revolution is a good one.

The world would be a very different place had it succeeded, which it very nearly did.

Of course you know why it failed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yes. It took a couple of centuries, but they were--their aims were achieved.


 
Which aims? The overthrow of the norman yoke? The abolition of private property? When did that happen? Was it before or after we passed through the era of wage slavery?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

The Far Left in the Civil War as grouped by Manning - the Levellers etc did not succeed in securing the abolition of private property and carrying out production in a socialised form. Nor did the peasants institute their vision of a commonly held agricultural land. It didn't happen. Their aims were not achieved even though they were very religious indeed.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

_Mexican revolution Not Materialist! Russian Revolution 1917- Materialist! German Revolution 1918- : Materialist! Hungarian Revolution 1919: Materialist! Iranian Revolution 1979 Not Materialist! _
_Er... Long live the not materialist ones - Crush Materialism!_


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Far Left in the Civil War as grouped by Manning - the Levellers etc did not succeed in securing the abolition of private property and carrying out production in a socialised form.


 
The Levellers didn't want to abolish private property, you probably mean the Diggers.

The Levellers wanted universal male suffrage, separation of church and state, religious toleration, abolition of monarchy... aims which have been achieved throughout the world, though not in England.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Far Left in the Civil War as grouped by Manning - the Levellers etc did not succeed in securing the abolition of private property and carrying out production in a socialised form. Nor did the peasants institute their vision of a commonly held agricultural land. It didn't happen. Their aims were not achieved even though they were very religious indeed.


 
and furthermore, not only did they fail but, we still (nominally) live under the constitutional settlement of 1688 established by the victors of that conflict, a mere 325 years later. That looks like a pretty comprehensive defeat to me, but I think we should drop it and let the avalanche on pseud mountain continue, see what else pops up.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There was no state atheism in the Second Republic 1931-1936 - simply that state schools would no longer accept Catholic priests as teachers that would propagate against the Republic (the Catholic Church stung by having to pay tax) - that's it - it's basic secularism not atheism.


 
Yeah, those were separate points, when I was talking about state atheism I was referring more to countries like the USSR, Mozambique or Albania but certainly not the Spanish Second Republic. *I'm* absolutely in favour of most of the measures taken towards the separation of the church and state in the Spanish Second Republic, but they weren't limited to secular education and the elimination of tax privileges. Church properties were expropriated by the government, in many areas religious processions were banned and there were measures as unnecessarily provocative as the taxation of the ringing of church bells. Compounded with popular violent anti-clericalism this did alienate a lot of moderate Catholics. If you're interested, Mary Vincent's Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic is really good on this - it focuses on Salamanca but these anti-clerical measures certainly were not limited to Salamanca.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _Mexican revolution Not Materialist! Russian Revolution 1917- Materialist! German Revolution 1918- : Materialist! Hungarian Revolution 1919: Materialist! Iranian Revolution 1979 Not Materialist! _
> _Er... Long live the not materialist ones - Crush Materialism!_


 
Staggering towards the exit now... weaving between the tables...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

The Levellers etc ie also including the True Levellers led by Winstanley ie the Diggers, the Shakers, the Ranters, the millenarian Baptist extremists, the Quakers - all of them, their aims were not met - not achieved in the place they were fighting for it.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Levellers etc ie also including the True Levellers


 
Haha nice Wikigrab.

The Levellers did not in any sense "include" the True Levellers, or Diggers, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the period would know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Staggering towards the exit now... weaving between the tables...


If you stop posting until you've left the pub you'll make a better exit.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Yeah, those were separate points, when I was talking about state atheism I was referring more to countries like the USSR, Mozambique or Albania but certainly not the Spanish Second Republic. *I'm* absolutely in favour of most of the measures taken towards the separation of the church and state in the Spanish Second Republic, but they weren't limited to secular education and the elimination of tax privileges. Church properties were expropriated by the government, in many areas religious processions were banned and there were measures as unnecessarily provocative as the taxation of the ringing of church bells. Compounded with popular violent anti-clericalism this did alienate a lot of moderate Catholics. If you're interested, Mary Vincent's Catholicism in the Second Spanish Republic is really good on this - it focuses on Salamanca but these anti-clerical measures certainly were not limited to Salamanca.


 
Anyone else persistently ringing out massive bells - say for communism, without license - would be imprisoned or otherwise repressed - as before and after that short period. There's no "right" to ring church bells without considering the community. Expropriation of property is was a result of unpaid taxation. Moderate Catholics chose to swing with the coup - their choice - they won in 1939, they have no grounds to complain of punitive anti-clericalism in the era before.  Thanks for the name though.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyone else persistently ringing out massive bells - say for communism, without license - would be imprisoned or otherwise repressed - as before and after that short period.


 
Yes, because bell-ringing is such a vital part of Communist tradition, the jails would be overflowing.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Expropriation of property is was a result of unpaid taxation.


 
Thomas Cromwell invented that one I believe?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

I haven't claimed the Levellers included all the other groups - originally I posted _Levellers etc _
as in others of their kind on one side. No doubt, this will be challenged, whilst the point that religious movements aren't at all better at securing working-class or revolutionary aims won't be investigated.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Haha nice Wikigrab.
> 
> The Levellers did not in any sense "include" the True Levellers, or Diggers, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of the period would know.


 
Yeah but you said "the far-left" in the civil war period, no fair minded person with the slightest knowledge of the peroid would characterise the Levellers as being on the far-left, the far-left implies the diggers and ranters and so forth. You've only backtracked on that afterwards, although either way you're still wrong. The Levellers were comprehensively defeated, and their political project destroyed terminally, alongside the smaller communist groups by the time William of Orange landed in the country. The powers that beat them still nominally rule us, and the system they set up is historically enduring.

The gains made since, in the mere 325 years since, such as universal suffrage, were introduced not as means by which to challenge class power and thus turn the world upside down, as the Levellers intended, but to incorporate a rising working-class into bourgeois liberal democracy before it could threaten the ruling class. The gradual way this was done, over a period of centuries, by Tories and Whigs, with the two 19th century reform acts, is one of the reasons why the British state founded by the 1688 settlement has managed to survive so successfully for so long - they actually managed to hold up the development of universal suffrage for hundreds of years so that it could safely be incorporated into the state without threatening the consitutional system in the way Levellers (or their more radical counterparts) had intended. At no point could these reforms be considered a victory for the Levellers, any more than David Cameron announcing fixed term parliaments to keep his coalition government in power is a victory for the Chartists.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I haven't claimed the Levellers included all the other groups - originally I posted _Levellers etc _
> as in others of their kind on one side. No doubt, this will be challenged, whilst the point that religious movements aren't at all better at securing working-class or revolutionary aims won't be investigated.


 
OK, forget the Levellers. It's true that religious communism has never been practically successful on any large scale, though revolutionary religious liberalism has.  But then neither has materialist communism.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Propaganda by sound, whatever you like - anything comparable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thomas Cromwell invented that one I believe?


You ignorant twat.

Do you honestly believe tc came up with it? It's at least as auld as the roman empire, so you're more than a millennium out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2013)

phildwyer next you'll be saying no one had dissolved a monastery before the 1530s


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

"revolutionary religious liberalism" as called, can completely be secular - a "secularist attitude" was blamed for the failure of the 1970s Turkish left (though not the Lebanese left) now goalposts again have been shifted (endlessly.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Yeah, those were separate points, when I was talking about state atheism I was referring more to countries like the USSR, Mozambique or Albania but certainly not the Spanish Second Republic.


 
What happened in Mozambique?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What happened in Mozambique?


 
Post-colonial Mozambique's policy on religion is actually really interesting. I very recently did an essay on social engineering in Mozambique so this is fresh in the mind 

The founder of Mozambican nationalism Eduardo Mondlane, like a lot of Mozambican nationalists, was educated in a Protestant religious school - pretty much the only decent institution for higher education for blacks in colonial Mozambique. During the early stages of the colonial war, in the areas controlled by Frelimo there was a high degree of toleration for and even support of Protestant groups, but due to the Catholic Church's role in facilitating colonialism Frelimo was hostile to Catholicism. Mozambican Muslims were generally supportive of Frelimo because they were treated so badly by Portuguese colonialism. Their attitude towards indigenous beliefs during both the colonial and post-colonial period was a little more complicated because indigenous beliefs were so tied to the indigenous leaders (regulos) that the Portuguese gave some autonomy to and Frelimo sought to undermine - this article can explain it a lot better than I can. 

During the late colonial war, Frelimo began to adopt more orthodox Marxist-Leninist position on religion and moved away from collaborating with non-Catholic religious groups. The 1975 Mozambican constitution promised religious freedom, but as part of a programme of social engineering the party began turning on all religious groups, including those who had mostly been friendly to Frelimo during the liberation struggle. Protestant missionaries were banned as foreign agents, Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to concentration camps, Muslim soldiers were forced to eat pork and on returning from hajj pilgrims were imprisoned. As part of the process of villagisation, a similar process to what went on in Tanzania, Frelimo forbade indigenous religious practice (although how that was interpreted by rural Mozambicans is complicated).

Rightly or wrongly, as in the Spanish Second Republic, all these anti-religious measures pushed a lot of the Mozambican population towards a brutal right-wing opposition which pretty much defined itself in opposition to Frelimo's policies on religion.

If you're interested I recommend Christian Geffray, La Cause des armes au Mozambique: Anthropologie d'une guerre civile, Eric Morier-Genound, 'Of God and Caesar: The Relation Between Christian Churches and the State in Post-Colonial Mozambique, 1974-1981', Alex Vines, Renamo: Terrorism in Mozambique


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

> Their attitude towards indigenous beliefs during both the colonial and post-colonial period was a little more complicated because indigenous beliefs were so tied to the indigenous leaders (regulos) that the Portuguese gave some autonomy to and Frelimo sought to undermine - this article can explain it a lot better than I can.


 
OK thank you for that they're not policies I know very well put the article on mediafire and I can read it otherwise I have zero access. My feeling was that like a whole host of Third World states - you mentioned the ujamaa villages in Tanzania - FRELIMO wanted to control any hostile movement.
Surely it's been religious and nationalist movements that have inflicted the worse chauvinistic practices on their various minorities, not specifically Soviet bloc ones. I know that Zaire went back and forth between phases of repression and liberalisation over "indigenous" religious expression because it was terrified of populist secession movements, Pakistan was terrible to its minorities - Christian and Muslim offshoot minorities for decades - loyalty oaths over Korans, raiding churches etc.

I don't know Mozambique well enough to comment, but surely in the case of somewhere like Spain's Second Republic - the power of the church leadership had to be curtailed, if only to secure religious rights for other minorities for example the Separdic Jews, wasn't the Spanish Catholic church very anti-semitic at the time? 
Basically we have to try and apply principles of democracy and equality to faith as much as to any other part of life. Religion certainly can't have special pleading to be exempt from taxation, from state education, from equality for minorities, from sexual freedom, from trade union rights, from licensing of its activities, from planning permission etc.
Obviously it's not the place you start in any approach, but the end point is a solid secularism, no?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

J Ed said:


> the Catholic Church's role in facilitating colonialism


 
It's not dissimilar to the Spanish church's role in Spanish Guinea or Spanish Morocco before and during the second republic


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2013)

Confucius was fine with lending money at interest, no wonder his ideas proved so ephemeral.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 25, 2013)

Good one Jim.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

Pickman's model would know, wasn't Catholicism from the late medieval era on also not opposed to lending at interest on the basis that the money was being deprived from someone for a while and was foregone consumption.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 25, 2013)

JimW said:


> Confucius was fine with lending money at interest, no wonder his ideas proved so ephemeral.


Don't be stupid Jim opposition to usury is _universal_!


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't be stupid Jim opposition to usury is _universal_!


Well, to be fair, later orthodoxy was against charging excessive interest, or what is commonly described as usury these days (merchants were the lowest of the low too - propriety before profit), but no opposition to interest on loans as Phil would have us believe.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No. Proles and bourgs are social classes, capital and labor are abstract concepts.
> 
> They coincide in some historical eras, but not in others. Not in ours, for example.


 
what's the defining characteristic of the bourgeois class? and the proletarian class?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> OK thank you for that they're not policies I know very well put the article on mediafire and I can read it otherwise I have zero access. My feeling was that like a whole host of Third World states - you mentioned the ujamaa villages in Tanzania - FRELIMO wanted to control any hostile movement.
> Surely it's been religious and nationalist movements that have inflicted the worse chauvinistic practices on their various minorities, not specifically Soviet bloc ones. I know that Zaire went back and forth between phases of repression and liberalisation over "indigenous" religious expression because it was terrified of populist secession movements, Pakistan was terrible to its minorities - Christian and Muslim offshoot minorities for decades - loyalty oaths over Korans, raiding churches etc.
> 
> I don't know Mozambique well enough to comment, but surely in the case of somewhere like Spain's Second Republic - the power of the church leadership had to be curtailed, if only to secure religious rights for other minorities for example the Separdic Jews, wasn't the Spanish Catholic church very anti-semitic at the time?
> ...


 
http://imgur.com/IODVfo8 

I think you're right about right-wing nationalist governments often being just as bad, if not worse, on religion than state socialist governments - Malawi is the prime example that comes to mind of a right-wing black African government which treated religious minorities awfully. Then again, tactically they didn't have to worry about providing white minority governments with an excuse to intervene in their country.

As far as Spain and minorities goes, the Catholic church was massively anti-Semitic but there were very few Jews in Spain at the time, the minority of Jews that were there were mostly Ashkenazi immigrants from Northern Europe. There was a small but politically influential (relative to its size) Protestant minority that definitely benefited from the separation of church and state in the Second Republic and were almost entirely spared the violence that was meted out against the Catholic church. So, undoubtedly did women, and that probably did more to annoy Catholic reactionaries than anything else!

My point isn't that secularism is undesirable, just that the means of getting it in both these contexts was very bad tactically and in some cases morally.

That being said, I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't separate the church and state in this country, get rid of faith schools (we should get rid of private schools while we're at it!) and ensure that churches pay taxes like other kinds of businesses. Although, I personally would want a more American-style secularism, the government shouldn't be enforcing the way in which women should or shouldn't dress. I'm a bit confused as to why parts of the left in this country have abandoned the idea that some form of secularism is desirable, in a few extreme cases I've even heard leftists accuse other leftists of racism because they think that the government shouldn't fund events for religious communities as this would mean that, for example, Eid celebrations would no longer receive government funding. I know that compared to fighting against austerity this stuff is small potatoes, but it's just a really weird position for any leftist to be at in the first place.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Pickman's model would know, wasn't Catholicism from the late medieval era on also not opposed to lending at interest on the basis that the money was being deprived from someone for a while and was foregone consumption.


 
No he wouldn't.  No it wasn't.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> That being said, I see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't separate the church and state in this country, get rid of faith schools (we should get rid of private schools while we're at it!) and ensure that churches pay taxes like other kinds of businesses. Although, I personally would want a more American-style secularism, the government shouldn't be enforcing the way in which women should or shouldn't dress. I'm a bit confused as to why parts of the left in this country have abandoned the idea that some form of secularism is desirable, in a few extreme cases I've even heard leftists accuse other leftists of racism because they think that the government shouldn't fund events for religious communities as this would mean that, for example, Eid celebrations would no longer receive government funding. I know that compared to fighting against austerity this stuff is small potatoes, but it's just a really weird position for any leftist to be at in the first place.


 
Yes, the separation of church and state is a basic principle of true religion. It's also an example of the eventual success of the "radical Reformation," in America.

It's also an example of an Islamic culture being more secularist than the West. Religious dress is banned for state employees in Turkey but not in the USA.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Agree with that, I don't really think religion has much of a place in politics tbh (or vice versa). I do follow Judaism a bit, not very closely, but I don't think what is thought of as "religious values" (even liberals religious values) should really inform politics. I think that some parts of many religions could be seen as having a revolutionary message, but equally it can be interpreted as having a very reactionary message and it is that has taken the form of most theocracies or political groups that claim to be motivated by religion.

I also think it's fucking off putting when religious leaders (even ones on the left) try to put their own political interpretations onto religious beliefs as well, or pervert the religion for racist/nationalist ends. or use the religion to try and send everyone on some sort of dubious liberal guilt trip.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what's the defining characteristic of the bourgeois class? and the proletarian class?


 
A bourgeois lives on interest; a proletarian sells his labor for wages.

You will note that, in today's West, most people do both.  Therefore they experience the ideological consequences of both, contradictory those these be.

And thus we see that the contradiction between capital and labor has become internalized within the psyche, as opposed to embodied in social classes.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

however, i think there is nothing inherently progressive about militant atheism though, just like there isn't necessarily anything progressive about any other religion. i just don't want politics and religion to mix too much. i think when the right do it is has horrific results and when the left does it it is horrible mawkish and patronising at best.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Agree with that, I don't really think religion has much of a place in politics tbh (or vice versa). I do follow Judaism a bit, not very closely, but I don't think what is thought of as "religious values" (even liberals religious values) should really inform politics.


 
I don't mind religious values informing politics.  I think the separation of church and state is a fundamental religious value.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I don't mind religious values informing politics. I think the separation of church and state is a fundamental religious value.


 
not to everyone. and depending on how you read these texts it's so ambiguous that you can often read any old shit into it if you want, that's how you get some people saying the bible clearly supports gay marriage(!) and others saying it doesn't.

i don't want a theocracy, a jewish theocracy would be fucking horrific.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I think the separation of church and state is a fundamental religious value.


 
In the US it's definitely a concept which had its origins in religious disagreement, you're really going to have to sell me on the idea that the separation of church and state is a 'fundamental religious value' though..


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> Well, to be fair, later orthodoxy was against charging excessive interest, or what is commonly described as usury these days (merchants were the lowest of the low too - propriety before profit), but no opposition to interest on loans as Phil would have us believe.


 
What are you on about?  "No opposition to interest on loans?"  When and where was that then?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> In the US it's definitely a concept which had its origins in religious disagreement, you're really going to have to sell me on the idea that the separation of church and state is a 'fundamental religious value' though..


 
The separation of church and state wasn't (and often still isn't) a secularist idea.  It was invented by religious people, as the most fundamental of their religious values.

In the modern era, the first of those people were the Left wing of the English Revolution, many of whom fled or were deported to America, where their descendents achieved the victory their forefathers had been denied.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What are you on about? "No opposition to interest on loans?" When and where was that then?


You missed the first post; within the Confucian tradition. Held generally within Chinese society in antiquity AFAIK; you get criticism of excessively high interest but nothing approaching a theology of the evils of interest.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't be stupid Jim opposition to usury is _universal_!


 
Until the seventeenth century it is.

If you know different, you can be famous.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> You missed the first post; within the Confucian tradition. Held generally within Chinese society in antiquity AFAIK; you get criticism of excessively high interest but nothing approaching a theology of the evils of interest.


 
OK, I didn't see that you were being specific.

On what grounds did Confucius justify usury?


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> OK, I didn't see that you were being specific.
> 
> On what grounds did Confucius justify usury?


He didn't to the best of my knowledge, but nor did he have any criticism of the charging of interest, which was already prevalent in his times in the pawn shops. Just seen as part of everyday life and not something that needed comment. Will try and see if if he said anything specific I've not seen or forgotten. There were (much, millennium or so) later 'Confucian" critiques of usurious interest but even they took the charging of interest to be right and proper, just not to excess.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> A bourgeois lives on interest; a proletarian sells his labor for wages.
> 
> You will note that, in today's West, most people do both. Therefore they experience the ideological consequences of both, contradictory those these be.
> 
> And thus we see that the contradiction between capital and labor has become internalized within the psyche, as opposed to embodied in social classes.


 
Showing your ignorance again Phil - the bourgeoisie live on _profit_. This may take the form of interest, it may not. Ultimately they all live on the surplus extracted from wage labour - but interest comes from a mere financial transaction - not all capitalists make their money in that way, the industrial bourgeoisie certainly don't.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> He didn't to the best of my knowledge, but nor did he have any criticism of the charging of interest, which was already prevalent in his times in the pawn shops. Just seen as part of everyday life and not something that needed comment. Will try and see if if he said anything specific I've not seen or forgotten. There were (much, millennium or so) later 'Confucian" critiques of usurious interest but even they took the charging of interest to be right and proper, just not to excess.


 
"Right and proper?" Are you sure? I can believe that it was ignored, but I'd be surprised if it was justified.

Hang on, a cursory Google shows an anti-usury law in the Han dynasty, second century BC. What's all that about then? I can't believe it fails to condemn the practice in general, though it may accept it as inevitable, as other legal codes accept prostitution or drug use, and thus suggest limiting rather than prohibiting it.

But I suspect that basically the truth is that the ancient Chinese despised usury just like everyone else.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Showing your ignorance again Phil - the bourgeoisie live on _profit_. This may take the form of interest, it may not. Ultimately they all live on the surplus extracted from wage labour - but interest comes from a mere financial transaction - not all capitalists make their money in that way, the industrial bourgeoisie certainly don't.


 
How do they make it then? Working double time at weekends?

The truth is that they make it entirely from financial transactions: buying labor, raw materials, machinery etc. on the one hand, selling and marketing finished products on the others. These are financial transactions.  The material transactions are performed by proletarians or slaves.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> How do they make it then? Working double time at weekends?


 
I never said they _earned _it, but that doesn't make it interest. For someone who claims to have read Marx you don't understand him very well.

They employ wage labour productively. They start with some money (m), buy means of production and wage labour as commodities (c) then (if they're doing it right) sell the produce for more money than they started with (M1). M-C-M1. It's not interest - it's profit.

You get that, for Marx, capitalism was a mode of _production_, not just a mode of exchange - only your posts on here  suggest that you don't understand that at all.

The capitalist doesn't pay the worker his wages until _after_ the work is done, so how can it possibly be interest? You loon.

If someone just lends someone else some money, then gets more paid back than they started with (interest) then they're not (directly) engaged in production. This is usury.

If someone employs wage labour to work on means of production for a profit this is not usury. The two things are not the same.

Even most idiots can understand this distinction. You must be a fairly extreme brand of idiot.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2013)

I think this is the point where we all start trying to escort the other man from the thread in some kind of mutual 'you've had enough mate' tussle or else.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> "Right and proper?" Are you sure? I can believe that it was ignored, but I'd be surprised if it was justified.


It's Mencius who talks more about propriety 义 versus  profit 利, and he has several dialogues with a king where he admonishes him for being interested in profit (it's in a very broad sense, things that benefit him/his polity here rather than monetary profit, though it was later taken as a locus classicus for discussions on profit in the narrower sense), but he also says that a good king is able to profit from his people without them finding it burdensome, i.e. seen as something the ideal ruler can do, if he does it right.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If someone just lends someone else some money, then gets more paid back than they started with (interest) then they're not (directly) engaged in production. This is usury.


 
No capitalist _qua _capitalist is directly engaged in production.  So by your own definition, they're _all _usurers.

And so you are hoist by your own petard.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> It's Mencius who talks more about propriety 义 versus profit 利, and he has several dialogues with a king where he admonishes him for being interested in profit (it's in a very broad sense, things that benefit him/his polity here rather than monetary profit, though it was later taken as a locus classicus for discussions on profit in the narrower sense), but he also says that a good king is able to profit from his people without them finding it burdensome, i.e. seen as something the ideal ruler can do, if he does it right.


 
And doing it right involves lending them money at interest? Seriously?

I think you also missed my edit about the Han dynasty second-century BC anti-usury law.  _?Que pasa?_


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No capitalist _qua _capitalist is directly engaged in production. So by your own definition, they're _all _usurers.
> 
> And so you are hoist by your own petard.


 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Usury is lending people money at interest, capitalism is paying people wages after they've done the work. Employers don't lend workers money at interest ffs! They pay them part of the surplus value they've produced and keep the majority for themselves.

Capitalism is not usury.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No capitalist _qua _capitalist is directly engaged in production. So by your own definition, they're _all _usurers.
> 
> And so you are hoist by your own petard.


 
Yes they are - they're employing their capital productively.

I can see I'm going to have to type really slowly if I'm to get you to understand this. We'll start with the really easy part - even you should be able to get it if you really concentrate:

Do you understand that there is a difference between lending money for interest and purchasing wage labour and means of production to produce a new commodity for sale at a profit?

I'm off to bed now but I suggest you read this for homework prof.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

Missed your edit - don't know about the Han, will have to check, but as I've said there was certainly criticism of usury in the sense of excessive interest in later periods, but absolutely no theoretical or theological objection to interest per se in the orthodoxy AFAIK. There were various millenarian peasant movements that were proto-communist etc but they weren't dealing in minor quibbles about fiscal practice, usually it was kill the rich and share the land.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Until the seventeenth century it is.
> 
> If you know different, you can be famous.


 
No it isn't. Why was it tolerated by so many feudal monarchs if it was "universally opposed" why did people do it if it was universally opposed?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

Since usury has existed as long as people have traded, do you believe that capitalism has also existed as long as people have traded Phil?


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And doing it right involves lending them money at interest? Seriously?


No, they had little to say about the subject because it wasn't an issue; I'm saying that since the word Mencius uses later came to mean profit in a more financial sense, that passage turns up as "scripture" in (much) later discussions.
This is the thanks I get for trying to humour your obsessions, shared by precisely zero early Chinese thinkers


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

why did people first start taking part in usury phil? what were the reasons? did they always choose to out of their own free will?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The capitalist doesn't pay the worker his wages until _after_ the work is done, so how can it possibly be interest?


 
That's _why it's fucking interest._

If you think about it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

No it's not!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No it's not!


 
Yes it is, because of the time value of money, which means that money is more valuable in the future than the present, so that paying the worker after he has done his work is extracting interest from him.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yes it is, because of the time value of money, which means that paying the worker after he has done his work is extracting interest from him.


 
Don't be silly.

Look, I'm not going to continue with this because doing so may give the false impression that there's actually a debate to be had. There isn't.

Since you've clearly never read Marx (nor, I must assume, any serious work of political economy - nobody claims that profit and interest are the same thing) I suggest you read _Capital,_ I've even provided you with a link. Then, assuming you're capable of understanding it (I'm not optimistic on that score prof) we can maybe have a discussion.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> No, they had little to say about the subject because it wasn't an issue; I'm saying that since the word Mencius uses later came to mean profit in a more financial sense, that passage turns up as "scripture" in (much) later discussions.
> This is the thanks I get for trying to humour your obsessions, shared by precisely zero early Chinese thinkers


 
Just saying, if they had a law against it in the second century BC, then obviously (a) it obviously was an issue, contrary to what you say, and (b) they obviously didn't really like it very much.  Obviously.

Though they may have ignored or limited it, having concluded that prohibition encourages any vice.

I think that's what you mean.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

I agree that, ultimately, both usury and profit that comes directly from capitalist _production_ are similar in that they're both cases of capitalists extracting a surplus from, or exploiting, workers. But there is an important distinction - what matters here is _how _that surplus is extracted.

So I suggest you go away and read some political economy, preferably Marx, then come back when you're not a complete and utter economic illiterate.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No it doesn't, you're quoting Wikipedia, get a grip.


Why do you continually out yourself as a troll so dedicated to the cause that you are prepared to make yourself look amazingly stupid in the process? I've chosen the example above because it requires no technical knowledge to grasp the desperation of your trolling.

There is a problem with citing wikipedia on controversial topics or matters of opinion, but none whatsoever with using it as a resource for technical information where it is properly referenced to authoritative sources. The wiki article is fully referenced, as was obvious from the extract from it that frogwoman posted.

If you want to criticise her choice of source, you need to show how the referencing is partial or incomplete. You can't just say "oh, you quoted wiki, therefore you need to get a grip".


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> nobody claims that profit and interest are the same thing


 
Neither do I.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Just saying, if they had a law against it in the second century BC, then obviously (a) it obviously was an issue, contrary to what you say, and (b) they obviously didn't really like it very much. Obviously.
> 
> Though they may have ignored or limited it, having concluded that prohibition encourages any vice.
> 
> I think that's what you mean.


Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest, and it's the state that's charging it.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> If you want to criticise her choice of source, you need to show how the referencing is partial or incomplete.


 
If you'll read the thread you'll see that I do so fully and completely.

In future, you will doubtless find it more convenient to refrain from commenting until you have at least familiarized yourself with the basics of our discussion.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest, and it's the state that's charging it.


 
Well I'm looking at* The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School, by Huan-chang Ch'en, Vol. 2, p.581n1, and he reckons there was an anti-usury law in 116 BC.*

Are you denying this?


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I'm looking at_ The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School_, by Huan-chang Ch'en, Vol. 2
> By Huan-chang Chʻen


Good for you. And you've found it agreeing with me but are understandably ashamed to say so. Fair play for trying, though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Neither do I.


 
You just did though. I capitalism and usury are the same thing profit and interest _must _be the same thing. You're an idiot prof.

Now go away and read _capital _before I'm forced to give you lines.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> Says the reverse of course. Googling about seems to have Patricia Ebrey, who did the economy bits for the Cambridge History of China (only got the post ming vols myself) saying that the Han state itself provided loans to farmers, which are referred to as "low-cost", i.e. there is some cost - consistent with being against usury but not against interest


 
... and also consistent with the proposition that usury and interest are identical, regrettable inevitabilities, like drugs or prostitution, which the government might as well tax and control, since they can't be eliminated by prohibition.

I suspect that was the true Confucian attitude too.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You just did though.


 
No I didn't, twit.

I said one was a species of the other.

Learn to read, twit.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> ... and also consistent with the proposition that usury and interest are identical, regrettable inevitabilities, like drugs or prostitution, which the government might as well tax and control, since they can't be eliminated.
> 
> I suspect that was the true Confucian attitude too.


Really not - they were all about order and good governance. The opposition to usury would be pragmatic because it was excessively burdensome on the peasantry and thus liable to create disharmony in the state, not from any theoretical/theological objection to interest in and of itself. I'd be less surprised if it turned out some Confucian hack hadn't advised the emperor they had to be loans at interest not cash gifts or no-interest as you didn't want welfare dependency, which would be more their speed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No I didn't, twit.
> 
> I said one was a species of the other.
> 
> Learn to read, twit.


 
Yes you did, moron. 

But now you're agreeing that the two concepts do not mean the same thing we're at least getting somewhere - you're learning - well done prof 

Which is a species of which? Is interest a species of profit or is profit a species of interest? If the former, why did you disagree with me in the first place? If the latter you're a moron.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree that, ultimately, both usury and profit that comes directly from capitalist _production_ are similar in that they're both cases of capitalists extracting a surplus from, or exploiting, workers. But there is an important distinction - what matters here is _how _that surplus is extracted.


 
How is that any different from what I'm saying?

You're not actually reading my posts are you?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No you didn't, moron. Which is a species of which? Is interest a species of profit or is profit a species of interest? If the former, why did you disagree with me in the first place? If the latter you're a moron.


 
The latter. 

Do you know what _moron _means in Welsh?  That's you that is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> How is that any different from what I'm saying?
> 
> You're not actually reading my posts are you?


 
Yes I am - it's different from what you're saying because one of them is usury and the other is not. Simple as that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The latter.
> 
> Do you know what _moron _means in Welsh? That's you that is.


 
You're calling me a carrot 

You're a moron - the English definition.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> Really not - they were all about order and good governance. The opposition to usury would be pragmatic because it was excessively burdensome on the peasantry and thus liable to create disharmony in the state, not from any theoretical/theological objection to interest in and of itself.


 
I don't think Confucianism acknowledges that distinction.



JimW said:


> I'd be less surprised if it turned out some Confucian hack hadn't advised the emperor they had to be loans at interest not cash gifts or no-interest as you didn't want welfare dependency, which would be more their speed.


 
So it was loans at interest _to the poor_ that were fine and dandy now?

Got to say, this is sounding pretty weird.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're calling me a carrot


 
You called yourself a carrot.

Most probably because you are a fucking carrot.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think Confucianism acknowledges that distinction.


That's my point really - as I said, it wasn't something they got exercised at the theological level you do and seem to think everyone else has, it was merely a practical issue bar the usual caveats about interpersonal ethics.



phildwyer said:


> So it was loans at interest _to the poor_ that were fine and dandy now?
> 
> Got to say, this is sounding pretty weird.


Well, the state offered them; that a self-professed Confucian might have preferred them to charity is my speculation. This has had me reading up on the Discourse on Salt and Iron though, which I'd completely forgotten - early debate about policy where it seems the Confucians were the liberal free-marketeers against the Legalist state interventionists, though seems that could well be the former's habit of venerating whatever the 'Ancients' were supposed to have done (usually spurious but there you go) and thus opposing innovation.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> That's my point really - as I said, it wasn't something they got exercised at the theological level you do and seem to think everyone else has, it was merely a practical issue bar the usual caveats about interpersonal ethics.


 
That is interesting.  Certainly it makes a dramatic exception from all three monotheistic religions, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Luther, Hegel, Marx... etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

How would you know whether it's different from Marx prof? You've clearly never even read him.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> How would you know whether it's different from Marx prof? You've clearly never even read him.


 
Carrot.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

What does it feel like to lose an argument with a carrot prof?


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If you'll read the thread you'll see that I do so fully and completely.
> 
> In future, you will doubtless find it more convenient to refrain from commenting until you have at least familiarized yourself with the basics of our discussion.


If that's the case (it is not), why did you post something so obviously vacuous as a response at all? I quoted the entirety of your post, so it's not even as if if was an ill-judged aside included as part of a serious point. It was solely intended as a cheap put-down.

I know you know it is vacuous. You're using the kind of overblown language you only ever use when you are trolling. Is this part of the fun for you? Making obviously stupid statements and then pissing yourself laughing when people think you actually mean it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

Careful, he might call you a cauliflower or summat.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> If that's the case (it is not), why did you post something so obviously vacuous as a response at all? I quoted the entirety of your post, so it's not even as if if was an ill-judged aside included as part of a serious point. It was solely intended as a cheap put-down.


 
It's not really very important in the context of the thread, Frogwoman obviously doesn't think so, and nor do I, so I don't know why you bring it up.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

I bring it up as one of many examples of your transparently obvious trolling. Nothing to do with the content of the thread, as you well know.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> I bring it up as one of many examples of your transparently obvious trolling.


 
Well don't. There is nothing that could possibly be gained thereby. Only a low malice of which I know you to be quite incapable would induce a person to meddle vicariously in affairs of this nature, unless directly concerned in the business.

Also you might wake Delbert.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

Oh, I wouldn't want you to stop trolling, Dwyer. I'd just hate for people to take you seriously on a thread that didn't need ruining and I seriously object when you descend to bullying.

On this one, you've been quite useful for a change.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's interesting that the magazine and mass movement (Father Coughlin's Social Justice) Jazzz said had all the answers to our problems _had we listened to it_ in the 1930s also published this kind of stuff:


 
No it's not really, it's quite irrelevant.

The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill.

Researching him, the internet reveals that he was Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during the depression. Just maybe he knew his stuff and was in a position to spill the beans.

He quoted, in a foreword to Irving Fischer's book 100% money:

_"We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon."_

Irving Fischer was considered by both the Nobel Prize winning economists Milton Friedman and James Tobin to be "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced".

This is money theory. It is mathematics. One thing I know about mathematics is that race has fuck all to do with it and really you would have to be an idiot to claim otherwise. Hemphill is not right or wrong depending on what race the bankers are. He is right or wrong depending on the maths. And he is right. The fact that your magazine printed something else by another author is here nor there. Even if Hemphill had sympathies with it it doesn't matter.

The extraordinary thing is that apparently on urban75 this is considered "loon" stuff. What that shows is just how fantastically programmed we are. We've been frogs that have been so marvellously boiled we think the current arrangement is 'the system', just the way things are. The way things are is that we've been fantastically ripped off and are slaves on timeshare. In the 1960s when they were designing all those wonderful labour saving machines, washing machines, dishwashers, massive advances in technology for production, etc - they thought, "what are we going to do with all our spare time?". Ha! How many of us can say they can work 20 hours a week and be fine?



> It's interesting that the link Jazzz uses to insert further empty nonsense includes the description: 'The macroeconomic statistics hide the reality of life for ordinary Icelanders. Higher taxes, spending cuts and a wave of repossessions have left many distraught.'
> It is - as close as we can see it - the anti-banking scenario Jazzz aspires to via the anti-semitic conspiracist ideas.


We are talking about a country that was bankrupt in 2008 with a currency that was worthless. As far as I know, they still have fractional-reserve banking. They've just picked themselves up off the floor remarkably.



> _The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat._
> 
> _They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign. _
> 
> ...


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

Thanks to Sihhi for putting me onto Hemphill, the googling of which led to this gem of a page:​​Don't believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. _First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly_ (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "_It sounds like fraud to me_," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney...​​​Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money​​​


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> _ "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney..._


 
Except that today of course, deregulation means that banks cannot commit fraud, or indeed do anything else illegal or even wrong.  Their word is law.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

which article jazzz - the "jewish reds" one?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

Fuck's sake - this might have been a useful thread, instead it ends up with Jazzz repeating already discredited arguments and people having to point out that books like Mein Kampf and the Protocols aren't credible sources (slight exaggeration but he's getting closer to that every day).

Since the thread is already ruined now, we might as well just get stuck into the pseud troll and the antisemitic loonspud troll.

As you were.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Whatever his social policies may have been, the author of Mein Kampf wasn't too far wrong about the banks.

http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/05/11/how_hitler_defied_the_bankers

(this is not a credible source btw, despite it appearing on a relatively credible site)


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No.  What stinks is _your _attempt, and those of your ilk, to link anti-semitism to anti-capitalism.  That's what's really dangerous.


We have been through this before, but once more... With feeling.
I distrust the term anticapitalist, (not least because it a negative term which Ill describes positivist alternatives to the present society), it is a catch all umbrella which covers such a wide range of viewpoints and pretends that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we are all on the same side. That proponents of ideologys whose inspirations happily slaughtered forerunners of my political tradition, and today publish apologetics for those acts, are really working for the same ideals as me.
Anti capitalist arguments do not in any way mean a progressive agenda, reactionary politics which embrace capitalism raw and unbridled are a relatively new phenomena: fascism, in all its manifestations is anti capitalist, as are the various religious fundamentalist political movements. Anti semitism as a modern 'scientific' theory was deeply anti capitalist.
 Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'


 
You're the anti-semite, because you connect anti-semitism with anti-capitalism.

You therefore connect "the Jews" with capitalism.

I wouldn't want to be connected with capitalism, not now, and certainly not in the future.  I don't think it would be good for my health.

And so it is you who are the anti-semite, Herr Pig.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

I don't think phil's an anti-semite, however i don't really follow the logic of his views on usury. Money doesn't increase in value necessarily (if anything, it decreases in value, £1 twenty years ago is worth far more than £1 today) so how can capitalist relations be interest? When a cashier gives you change at the shop is that usury as well?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

he's not. 

I don't think you are either. But your views on usury are a bit ... illogical


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Since the thread is already ruined now...


 
Translation: "since my entire worldview has just come crashing down around my ears..."


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Translation: "since my entire worldview has just come crashing down around my ears..."


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I wouldn't want to be connected with capitalism, not now, and certainly not in the future. I don't think it would be good for my health.


 
But you are.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> £1 twenty years ago is worth far more than £1 today


 
And yet $1 in 20 years most definitely is worth more than $1 today.

No-one ever called capitalism logical.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Translation: "since my entire worldview has just come crashing down around my ears..."


 
This is your last warning prof - if you don't stop being such a potato I'm going to have to ban you from this thread - you have been warned.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And yet $1 in 20 years most definitely is worth more than $1 today.
> 
> No-one ever called capitalism logical.


 
What makes you think that that will be the case


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No it's not really, it's quite irrelevant.
> 
> The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill.
> 
> Researching him, the internet reveals that he was Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta during the depression. Just maybe he knew his stuff and was in a position to spill the beans.


 
You are now openly saying that an openly anti-semitic article from an anti-semite in an anti-semitical magazine of a wider anti-semitical movemt is not not a problem. On the contrary, you now aggressively insist that the author of an article that argues that jews are behind everything and that then engages in mcarthyite jew-baiting (that in fact goes further than mcarthyism ever did by naming names) is someone to be listened to, to be respected and to learnt from. 

And why do you say that Hemphill wrote it anyway? There is no correspondent listed? Why have you said that it is Hemphill? You've even messed that most basic of things up.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But you are.


 
No, I am an anti-capitalist.

In sharp contrast, Herr Pig has just outed himself as a pro-capitalist, which will not surprise the perceptive greatly.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And yet $1 in 20 years most definitely is worth more than $1 today.
> 
> No-one ever called capitalism logical.


 
If i go to the corner shop and buy some fags and pay with a tenner and the guy at the checkout gives me my change is he a usurer phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What makes you think that that will be the case


 
It is the case _now._

Honestly, I'm not making this up.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, I am an anti-capitalist.
> 
> In sharp contrast, Herr Pig has just outed himself as a pro-capitalist, which will not surprise the perceptive greatly.


 
You might be but you're still connected to capitalism. Everyone is.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, I am an anti-capitalist.
> 
> In sharp contrast, Herr Pig has just outed himself as a pro-capitalist, which will not surprise the perceptive greatly.


 
No you're not. You'd have to know what capitalism _is_ to be an anticapitalist.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> <snip>
> 
> Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'


 
He's actually just doing it for kicks. Which is arguably worse.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It is the case _now._
> 
> Honestly, I'm not making this up.


 
that's bollocks. Even penny sweets are worth more than a penny now.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> that in fact goes further than mcarthyism ever did by naming names


 
McCarthyism never named names eh?

Get a freaking grip man.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

At some point today, if I'm still housebound by snow, I might just go through the thread at all the various little statements Phil's dished out as fact and collate them all in easy-to-reach repository just so you can see how much of a flagrant bullshit-artist he is. Latest one to add to the list.



phildwyer said:


> No-one ever called capitalism logical.


 
Bet I could find a few people who did.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that's bollocks. Even penny sweets are worth more than a penny now.


 
No, you don't understand. Google "future value of money" or something.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money#Present_value_of_a_future_sum


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, you don't understand. Google "future value of money" or something.


 
but what's plainly demonstratable when i go to the shops (that the price of things goes up, sometimes down, but mostly up) is surely a refutation of your idea that being paid for your work is usury, since usury is lending money at extortionate rates, the value of money usually decreases rather than increases, so how can it be interest, and how can the former value of the money be less than what it is. If you are paid by your employer you don't necessarily pay that money back straight to them do you? they keep some of the money you should have got but you don't necessarily use their services.

if you work for a company but never buy from them or use anything they buy, you walk to work etc, then how are they lending you the money? they are giving part of it to you and just keeping the rest of it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

It's a complete nonsense argument and you're wasting your time discussing it with him mate - he doesn't actually believe it.

What's happened is he's been exposed as a complete ignoramus when it comes to political economy, and especially Marxist political economy, so he's ended up painting himself into a farcical corner in which he must argue that wage labour and usury are one and the same.

Ignore him. He's a bit of a parsnip and I feel a bit sorry for him now - must be pretty humiliating for an Oxbridge educated professor to constantly have his arse handed to him in arguments with peoplewho enjoyed none of his educational privileges. The best education money can buy and he still couldn't find his own arse with both hands.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Thanks to Sihhi for putting me onto Hemphill, the googling of which led to this gem of a page:​​Don't believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. _First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly_ (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script. Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "_It sounds like fraud to me_," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney...​​​Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money​​​


You, of course, don't mention that the case was thrown out and nullified.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but what's plainly demonstratable when i go to the shops (that the price of things goes up, sometimes down, but mostly up) is surely a refutation of your idea that being paid for your work is usury, since usury is lending money at extortionate rates, the value of money usually decreases rather than increases, so how can it be interest, and how can the former value of the money be less than what it is. If you are paid by your employer you don't necessarily pay that money back straight to them do you? they keep some of the money you should have got but you don't necessarily use their services.
> 
> if you work for a company but never buy from them or use anything they buy, you walk to work etc, then how are they lending you the money? they are giving part of it to you and just keeping the rest of it.


 
No one ever called it logical.

My entire point on this thread has been to show just how illogical it is.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> ..The best education money can buy and he still couldn't find his own arse with both hands.


It isn't. It really, really isn't. A mate of mine did BA English there. One week his essay title was "Dickens".

It's a fucking joke of an education. The only thing it teaches you is to scramble out two essays a week and argue bad points well. That is why Dwyer is good at this trolling shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The best education money can buy


 
I never paid a penny for my education.

I bet you did though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> It isn't. It really, really isn't. A mate of mine did BA English there. One week his essay title was "Dickens".
> 
> It's a fucking joke of an education. The only thing it teaches you is to argue bad points well. That is why Dwyer is good at this trolling shit.


 
That's not true at all though is it? It's not perfect but it's far, far better than what most of us get. And the extent to which it's a 'joke' really depends what you're comparing it with.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

happy pesach everyone btw.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I never paid a penny for my education.
> 
> I bet you did though.


 
Nope, I've never spent even a fraction of a penny on education and I never said _whose _money was buying it.

Face it phil, despite all the privileges you've enjoyed, despite the position you now occupy in academia, you're still an ignorant cabbage.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> It isn't. It really, really isn't. A mate of mine did BA English there. One week his essay title was "Dickens".
> 
> It's a fucking joke of an education. The only thing it teaches you is to scramble out two essays a week and argue bad points well. That is why Dwyer is good at this trolling shit.


 
You're an ex-public schoolgirl aren't you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

Here we go


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nope, I've never spent even a fraction of a penny on education


 
Well I'd be asking for my money back if I were you.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You, of course, don't mention that the case was thrown out and nullified.


 
In 20 years that pioneering case at Horsham Magistrate's Court will have passed into legend.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I'd be asking for my money back if I were you.


 
What does that say about you? An Oxbridge educated professor who can't even win an argument with a someone whose education was a rip off even though it was free. You're purple sprouting broccoli.


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's not true at all though is it? It's not perfect but it's far, far better than what most of us get. And the extent to which it's a 'joke' really depends what you're comparing it with.


I've learnt more from Captain Hurrah, Butchers and you than Oxford ever taught me (politics, economics and philosophy combined ). I don't regard being taught to bullshit well as an education. It's a passport into the kinds of jobs where employers go starry-eyed about Oxbridge and little else. It was the worst decision of my life and I didn't know anyone who wasn't more interested in the fucking Oxford Union than their degree who didn't agree with me (about the quality of the undergraduate courses, that is).

The syllabus is appalling across the board. You do get access to some great minds, but it's very rare that you will get a tutor who is up to much. The best strategy with lectures is to go to the ones with known good lecturers regardless of your subject. The ones that apply to what you're studying most likely are not being run in the term you are studying it and are often the most appallingly didactic summary of their most recent book/paper which you'd be a great deal better off studying alone.

It is much better for post-graduates, but the standard is not particularly high for them. I did some marking for them where three students were clear fails. The papers got fudged so that they all passed. I was appalled. There was nothing I could do.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

My old uni is considered better than oxford at a lot of subjects, as are some of the former polytechnics like Loughborough etc. On the whole though it is a massive privilege to go there.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> 'The papers got fudged so that they all passed. I was appalled.


 
I say what rotters.

Roedean if I had to guess.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No it's not really, it's quite irrelevant.
> 
> The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill.
> 
> ...


Ah, Irving Fisher, first president of the American Eugenics Society. You just can't help yourself can you.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Oy vey.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> We have been through this before, but once more... With feeling.
> I distrust the term anticapitalist, (not least because it a negative term which Ill describes positivist alternatives to the present society), it is a catch all umbrella which covers such a wide range of viewpoints and pretends that, despite all evidence to the contrary, we are all on the same side. That proponents of ideologys whose inspirations happily slaughtered forerunners of my political tradition, and today publish apologetics for those acts, are really working for the same ideals as me.
> Anti capitalist arguments do not in any way mean a progressive agenda, reactionary politics which embrace capitalism raw and unbridled are a relatively new phenomena: fascism, in all its manifestations is anti capitalist, as are the various religious fundamentalist political movements. Anti semitism as a modern 'scientific' theory was deeply anti capitalist.
> Phildwyer deliberately demands that anti capitalism cannot be anti Semitic, thus allowing him to indulge in his thinly veiled anti Semitic rant, and hides that he never reveals the nature of his 'anti capitalism'


 
Reminds me a bit of the schtick some people have that anti-Zionism is anti-racist therefore they as anti-racist campaigners can never be considered to be anti-Semitic, even while they are saying that Jews control Western governments!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Reminds me a bit of the schtick some people have that anti-Zionism is anti-racist therefore they as anti-racist campaigners can never be considered to be anti-Semitic, even while they are saying that Jews control Western governments!


 
If you mention zionism it's a magic get out of racism free card.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> Confucius was fine with lending money at interest, no wonder his ideas proved so ephemeral.


 
So was Calvin. He was well into usury infact. And I quote, Max Weber, General Economic History, Chapter 21, pg 271:



> In northern Europe the prohibition against usury was broken up by Protestantism, although not immediately. In the Calvinist synods we repeatedly meet with the conception that a lender and his wife must not be admitted to the Lord's Supper, but Calvin himself declared in the _Constitutio Christiana_ that the purpose of the prohibition of interest was only the protection of the poor against destitution and not the protection of the rich who carried out business with borrowed money. Finally it was the Calvinistic leader in the field of classical philology Claudius Salmasius, who in his book De Usuris in 1638, and in a number of later tracts undermined the theoretical foundations of the prohibition against interest


Good job that Calvinism had nothing do with the growth of captalism in western europe, otherwise Phil would look like a right dick.



phildwyer said:


> But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has _everywhere, _and _at all times, universally _been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion (Judaism very much included), and condemned on rational grounds by every major philosopher up to and of course including K. Marx. There are excellent reasons for that, as we are now learning.


 
By the way chapter 22 starts with a rational account of the logical necessity of capitalist development, so there's one figure who considered capitalism "logical" - Max Weber (and by the way just because something has inherent contradictions or illogical aspects does not make the totality of that something illogical)


----------



## ymu (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> My old uni is considered better than oxford at a lot of subjects, as are some of the former polytechnics like Loughborough etc. On the whole though it is a massive privilege to go there.


There's no doubt that it is a massive privilege, nor that it helps with getting good jobs. I just dispute the quality of the education. As you say, you have to look at individual universities for the course to say which is best. Oxford Brookes (poly back then) was clearly superior for computing - I used to go there because they only allowed engineering students access to computers at Oxford whereas Oxford Poly had a whole lab that anyone could use. Hatfield Poly was streets ahead for anything business-related at the time too.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If you mention zionism it's a magic get out of racism free card.


 
Not just a get out of racism free card, I think it's also a get out of doing anything for the people you purport to represent free card too. An increasing number of so-called left-wingers are more than happy to wrap themselves in the Palestinian flag to ensure their left-wing credentials while voting through neoliberal legislation.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> So was Calvin. He was well into usury infact.


 
No, he was not "well into usury," you _idiot._


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, he was not "well into usury," you _idiot._


Calvin was certainly fine with interest. As we do nowadays, he distinguished between socially acceptable interest and usury, defined as unacceptably high interest.



> _Thus, he developed the seven criteria (“exceptions” in French; “restrictions” in English – a kind of qualifying exception) as a guideline to charging interest (Calvin, Johannes: Corpus Reformatorum C.R. vol. 38/l, p. 248f.):_
> 
> “The first restriction is that you are not allowed to charge interest from the poor and that nobody may be forced to pay interest when being in a plight or visited with misfortune.
> 
> ...


http://www.christophstueckelberger.ch/dokumente_e/calvinzins.htm


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oxford Brookes (poly back then) was clearly superior for computing


 
A better class of servant too as I recall eh what?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Not just a get out of racism free card, I think it's also a get out of doing anything for the people you purport to represent free card too. An increasing number of so-called left-wingers are more than happy to wrap themselves in the Palestinian flag to ensure their left-wing credentials while voting through neoliberal legislation.


 
Exactly.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Calvin was certainly fine with interest.


 
No, he was not "fine with interest."

He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

i think you're talking bollocks again because usury existed well before the capitalist era.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, he was not "well into usury," you _idiot._


 
You can call me names all you like, fact of the matter is you're demonstrably wrong, and I'm right. This statement here



phildwyer said:


> But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has _everywhere, _and _at all times, universally _been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion


 
Is as wrong as saying 2 + 2 = 5. I just picked Calvinism because it's the most obvious one, had I the time or effort to go into more detail I reckon you could find dozens of historical examples to prove how wrong you are.

Just like you were wrong about how capitalism "gone passed" industrial wage-slavery, you're wrong about this. And your response is to call _me_ an idiot?

I think witless abuse is the last refuge of the bullshit-artist.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, he was not "fine with interest."
> 
> He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.


So you deny that he distinguishes between acceptable interest and unacceptable usury? Keep on diggin that hole, fuckface.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, he was not "fine with interest."
> 
> He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.


 
So, in other words, he was in favour of usury? Which is odd coz you said that usury had been "condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when in actual fact Calvinist protestantism didn't share this view whatsoever.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> So, in other words, he was in favour of usury? Which is odd coz you said that usury had been "condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when in actual fact Calvinist protestantism didn't share this view whatsoever.


It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole. He did see the value of using interest-bearing loans as a means of furthering business, but was strongly opposed to lending to the poor at interest.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole. He did see the value of using interest-bearing loans as a means of furthering business, but was strongly opposed to lending to the poor at interest.


 
Yeah I don't doubt for a second, what I'm disputing is this sentence - "and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when infact, no, that isn't the case, some major religious groups were quite happy to reconcile themselves to interest/usury as long as there were safeguards against the poor being exploited. Such as Calvinism.

We'll just wait for Jazzz, sorry Phil, to accept he was wrong and retract that, then we'll have a more nuanced discussion about theology and calvinism, where these things can be discussed properly.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Yeah I don't doubt for a second, what I'm disputing is this sentence - "and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" when infact, no, that isn't the case, some major religious groups were quite happy to reconcile themselves to interest/usury as long as there were safeguards against the poor being exploited. Such as Calvinism.
> 
> We'll just wait for Jazzz, sorry Phil, to accept he was wrong and retract that, then we'll have a more nuanced discussion about theology and calvinism, where these things can be discussed properly.


Prepare for a long wait.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Now that he's banned from the thread we shouldn't have long.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Prepare for a long wait.


 
It's ok I can just keep myself busy looking at the many other factual mistakes Phils' made during this thread and doing the same with them. Well until my mate comes and picks me up that is.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No it doesn't, it says you're wrong. (I take it you accidently erased a 1 there).
> 
> So Mr. Webster says it's 'archaic' does he? Now, why would he say that I wonder? I bet he's dashed glad it's 'archaic' too.
> 
> It's not archaic, I'm using it now. And number 2 says you're wrong too.


 
This is good one for some semantic quibbling I'll just bump this and leave it on the page to mull over later....


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Thirteen minutes.

That's right. Just thirteen, sweaty-fingered, Google-packed, Wiki-racking minutes is all it took to get Truxta from here:



TruXta said:


> Calvin was certainly fine with interest.


 
To here:



TruXta said:


> It's a bit more complex than that, as Calvin wasn't exactly positive about money-lending as a whole.


 
Surely that must be some kind of record?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thirteen minutes.
> 
> That's right. Just thirteen, sweaty-fingered, Google-packed, Wiki-racking minutes is all it took to get Truxta from here:
> 
> ...


You forget to take some kind of medicine or something? You're banned from this thread. Fuckwit.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

Compare and contrast these two historical sources:

A


phildwyer said:


> But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has _everywhere, _and _at all times, universally _been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion (Judaism very much included), and condemned on rational grounds by every major philosopher up to and of course including K. Marx. There are excellent reasons for that, as we are now learning.


 
B


phildwyer said:


> He was among the first to reluctantly rationalize limited usury as regrettably inevitable , at the dawn of the (modern) capitalist era. And thus my point regarding the identity of usury and capitalism is once again demonstrated.


 
Now according to exhibit A, every major religion (everywhere, at all times, universally etc) has condemed usury on ethical grounds. And yet in exhibit B Phil claims Calvinist christianity from about the mid 17th Century onwards "reluctantly rationalised limited usury as regrettably inevitable" that is to say, they thought usury was fine in specific circumstances.

Now which is it to be Phil? A or B? They can't both be right. You can say "every world religion ever condemns usury no exceptions" and then say "Ok but the Calvinists accepted usury, but that doesn't count, coz they were secretly against it deep down in their hearts" because you're contradicting yourself.

By the way feel free to call me some more names if you're too much of a coward to reply. I could do with a laugh


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Compare and contrast these two historical sources:
> 
> A
> 
> ...


 
Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.

Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times _except in the modern West. _What I'm drawing attention to is precisely the modern West's anomalous position in this regard. For some reason, doubtless connected to usury's unprecedented power, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors on this subject.

Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the modern, capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin_, _Mill--who went tiny steps further. And today of course usury is not only rationalized but glorified, and certainly not subject to ethical criticism.

But that really, truly is a situation unique to the modern world.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Conveniently forgetting about China and the Confucians, phil?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.
> 
> Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times




_no it hasn't. _

why did people take part in usury phil? 

_And usury is not capitalism for the last time. _

_



			except in the modern West.
		
Click to expand...

_


> What I'm drawing attention to is precisely the modern West's anomalous position in this regard. For some reason, doubtless connected to usury's unprecedented power, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors on this subject.
> 
> Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the modern, capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin_, _Mill--who went tiny steps further. And today of course usury is not only rationalized but glorified, and certainly not subject to ethical criticism.
> 
> But that really, truly is a situation unique to the modern world.


 
it is subject to ethical criticism:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/19/banking-royal-bank-scotlandgroup


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Conveniently forgetting about China and the Confucians, phil?


 
I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.

Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?

If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.

Do you understand why usury should be illegal? It's because, to the extent that it is legal, all power rapidly accrues to usurers.

I know, I know... you think that's a ridiculous notion, it could never happen etc. Or maybe you even think it wouldn't matter if it did happen? I wonder how much longer you, or anyone else, is going to think that...


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.
> 
> Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?
> 
> If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.


Funny how loaning out money at interest has been ongoing for so long then. All over the world.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

So I was right all along. When I think about usury, apart from the other obvious connotations , payday loans and that are what I think about in a modern context.

And it was tolerated in many periods of history. Otherwise (for example) there wouldn't have been any money changers for Jesus to throw out for example


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA.
> 
> Do you have "payday loans" over there yet? Do you know what interest rates they (quite legally) charge?
> 
> If you'd told anyone from the ancient, medieval or early modern worlds that shit was ever going to be legal, let alone ethically sanctioned, they would have literally burned you at the stake.


 
In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of  production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of  production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.


Cash and a money economy were a tiny small part of the real economy


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> In socieities based on (ancient) slavery, feudalism, or the lineage mode of production, exploitation occurred directly at the point of production, when surpluses were extracted at the point of a sword. Hence there was no need to resort to exotic accounting procedures to ensure the exploitative appropriation of surplus, and it was no problem at all for those societies to ignore or condemn usury.


 
That's right. 

It's a massive problem for us though.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Cash and a money economy were a tiny small part of the real economy


 
Usury precedes both cash and a money economy.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.
> 
> Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times _except in the modern West._


 
Well firstly you never said "except in the modern west" did you, that's something you're adding now to try and pull yourself out of a potentially embarassingly little hole you've dug for yourself. What you said was _"everywhere... at all times... universally been regarded .... condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion"_ and you said it quite defintively. You did not say anything about the "modern west" until it became clear your original statement was wrong, and you had to start searching for a get-out clause.

I also think that calling the year 1638 as "modern" is dis-ingenuous. Just like claiming The Levellers were the "far-left" of the English Civil War, when that label would most accurately apply to Diggers et al not to the Levellers. It's dishonest firstly, and looks like a pretty transparent attempt at backtracking to me.

you could just accept you got it wrong of course.



phildwyer said:


> What I'm drawing attention to is precisely the modern West's anomalous position in this regard. For some reason, doubtless connected to usury's unprecedented power, we seem to have forgotten the wisdom of our ancestors on this subject.


 
So if I, tonight, find some more examples of religious groups tolerating usury outside of the west you'll be prepared to accept that you're wrong too?



phildwyer said:


> Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin_, _Mill--who went tiny steps further.


 
Few more points here. It's a bit early in British history to be talking of the "the Capitalst era" only limited types of very basic agrarian capitalism existed in this time period iirc, and it accounted for a very tiny part of the economy as a whole. Again, it's dis-ingenuous and dishonest of you to use words and phrases that have specific meanings in such a fast and loose way.

Secondly, what evidence can you offer to suggest that Calvin's acceptance of usury as "reluctant" because I'd be interested to know where you got that from.

I've got to go out now, but I will return to this at a later point.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So I was right all along. When I think about usury, apart from the other obvious connotations , payday loans and that are what I think about in a modern context.
> 
> And it was tolerated in many periods of history. Otherwise (for example) there wouldn't have been any money changers for Jesus to throw out for example


 
The point is that he threw them out, not that they were there in the first place.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Usury precedes both cash and a money economy.


 
this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> So if I, tonight, find some more examples of religious groups tolerating usury outside of the west you'll be prepared to accept that you're wrong too?


 
If you find them rationalizing it I will.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?


I can lend you two hens and demand five sheep back.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?


 
Think about it.  What is money?  What does it represent?

See?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The point is that he threw them out, not that they were there in the first place.


 
who let them into the temple then phil? not that i believe this story actually happened, but they can't have been universally hated by everyone if they were in there in the first place!


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

Keep going frogwoman and Delroy, i think you're finally going to argue phil out of his long-entrenched views, that he gets paid to write about and all that!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I can lend you two hens and demand five sheep back.


 
What if they were very big hens? Then five sheep might be a reasonable exchange, and non-usurious.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well firstly you never said "except in the modern west" did you, that's something you're adding now to try and pull yourself out of a potentially embarassingly little hole you've dug for yourself. What you said was _"everywhere... at all times... universally been regarded .... condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion"_ and you said it quite defintively. You did not say anything about the "modern west" until it became clear your original statement was wrong, and you had to start searching for a get-out clause.


 
I responded seriously to you, but you don't seem to return the favor.

Any fair-minded and literate person can easily see that the entire thrust of my critique is that the modern Western world is unique in both its ethical rationalization of usury and in the extent of its practice theroef.

If you can't even acknowledge that much, you're either illiterate or unfair-minded, and in any case unworthy of serious treatment or regard at any later date.

Also:



Delroy Booth said:


> I also think that calling the year 1638 as "modern" is dis-ingenuous.


 
Well you're wrong. The early modern period runs until 1640. Or 1688. Or 1789. But in any case you are wrong.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> What if they were very big hens? Then five sheep might be a reasonable exchange, and non-usurious.


Yeah.... could be. Still, my point stands.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yeah.... could be. Still, my point stands.


 
No, Frogs has already cut your point off at the legs, inna None Shall Pass Black Knight stylee.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.


OK, say I lend you three hens and say I want six hens back? And say you think that's unfair but you need those eggs badly so you say yes? I'd go along with calling that usurious.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.


You're forgetting that according to phil usury is a magical phenomenon, and hence its history can be bundled up into the history of other magical beliefs before the dominance of money! By all means enjoy the merry go round, but don't think it'll take you out of the fairground!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> OK, say I lend you three hens and say I want six hens back? And say you think that's unfair but you need those eggs badly so you say yes? I'd go along with calling that usurious.


 
yeah, it could be. I don't think it's exactly the same though. Usury with eggs ffs


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, it could be. I don't think it's exactly the same though. Usury with eggs ffs


 Eggsury.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Swapping eggs and chickens isn't exactly what's commonly thought of as usury is it? And you can't eat money or use it to do other stuff, and if you were lent three hens and told you want six hens back that's not necessarily that difficult, you could give back the original three hens, lets say each hen lays four eggs, you could give back the original hens plus three of the hens that hatched from the eggs and you'd be fine, you'd end up with more eggs and chickens than you started off with (and probably more than the "usurer"). You can't exactly do that with money.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Secondly, what evidence can you offer to suggest that Calvin's acceptance of usury as "reluctant" because I'd be interested to know where you got that from.


 
For fuck's sake, how difficult is it to use Google?  These are not matters of dispute we are having here.  Calvin says:

"Yes, of course, the majority of our lending should be to the poor with no hope of return; I’m just saying that loans at interest to the rich are not completely forbidden; they are the exception to the rule, to be sure, but a permissible exception.” 

And:

“What am I to say, except that usury almost always travels with two inseparable companions: tyrannical cruelty and the art of deception.  This is why the Holy Spirit elsewhere advises all holy men, who praise and fear God, to abstain from usury, so much so that it is rare to find a good man who also practices usury.” 

And:

“I must reiterate that when I approve of some usury, I am not extending my approval to all its forms.  Furthermore, I disapprove of anyone engaging in usury as his form of occupation.”

And:

“it is quite obvious that the interest a merchant pays is a public fee."

And loads of other similar stuff.  Why don't you do your own research?

Truxta's a tosspot, Ymu's a loony, Barney Pig's an anti-semite.  What's your excuse?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Eggsury.


 
You stupid bastard.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> You're forgetting that according to phil usury is a magical phenomenon, and hence its history can be bundled up into the history of other magical beliefs before the dominance of money! By all means enjoy the merry go round, but don't think it'll take you out of the fairground hall of mirrors!


 
We're through the looking glass people - or to put it another way, it's phil's world we just live in it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

> so much so that it is rare to find a good man who also practices usury.


 
it is rare, not that it never happens.


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I believe Jim will confirm that they ignored usury rather than justified it, and also that excessive usury was illegal, as it has been literally everywhere except the twenty-first century USA...


That seems to be the case though of course I think you're putting a different spin on it - in that IMO the fact they saw no reason to condemn it or even discuss it in ethical terms, i.e. did not problematise it, suggests it's seen as right or normal - they were quick to condemn all sorts of what to us seem esoteric social practices that they didn't approve of, like the wrong sort of ceremonials.
As I recall, private land ownership with some independent peasantry happened very early in China, especially in the north, hence the state loans for tool and other agricultural inputs; will try and scare up something a bit more authoritative than a Google-fest and see what is said.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> who let them into the temple then phil? not that i believe this story actually happened, but they can't have been universally hated by everyone if they were in there in the first place!


 
Bastards let them in, that's who. Bastards like the bastards on this thread.

If usurers weren't universally hated, find me someone defending them. Find me someone, just one person, describing them in any terms other than those of the lowest possible contempt and revilation, anywhere in the entire world before 1650.

You can't.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

In the heat of this debate, I think it should really be remembered that "...there is and always has been only one logical or ethical reply to Jews, err... sorry, I mean 'usurers': So I owe you 10 billion dollars, do I? OK Shylock [...] think yourself lucky we don't throw you down a well... err.... sorry, I mean 'into the Tiber in a sack full of vipers' like what they used to."."


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Bastards let them in, that's who. Bastards like the bastards on this thread.
> 
> If usurers weren't universally hated, find me someone defending them. Find me someone, just one person, describing them in any terms other than those of the lowest possible contempt and revilation, anywhere in the entire world before 1650.
> 
> You can't.


 

Shakespeare.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> it is rare, not that it never happens.


 
Yes, but Calvin quite obviously regards usury as a _vice.  _Thus to be regrettably tolerated in fallen man, though always forbidden and punished in excess. He thinks of usury as something like drinking or whoring.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Shakespeare.


 
Shylock, not Shakespeare.

Speaking of Shylock, this very timely passage succinctly expresses the way that usury is traditionally conceived as an inherently aggressive, hostile, anti-social act. An act of war, essentially:

*Antonio: *"If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends- for when did friendship take
A breed for barren metal of his friend?-
But lend it rather to thine enemy,
Who if he break thou mayst with better face
Exact the penalty." (_MOV _1.3.8)

I hope they're reading that in Nicosia today.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Shylock, not Shakespeare.


 
Shakespeare presents his character as a somewhat understandable figure though IIRC, not necessarily the scum of the earth.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Religious_restrictions_on_interest

Has an interesting tidbit


> Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury. These societies regarded inanimate matter as alive, like plants, animals and people, and capable of reproducing itself. Hence if you lent 'food money', or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest.[128] Food money in the shape of olives, dates, seeds or animals was lent out as early as c. 5000 BCE, if not earlier. Among the Mesopotamians, Hittites, Phoenicians and Egyptians, interest was legal and often fixed by the state


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If usurers weren't universally hated, find me someone defending them. Find me someone, just one person, describing them in any terms other than those of the lowest possible contempt and revilation, anywhere in the entire world before 1650.
> 
> You can't.


It took me about ten minutes, bored at work: one of the many letters to money lender Thomas Sutton, founder of Charterhouse school.



> "Right worshipfull, I am a musitian, who formerly
> have brought upp noblemens daughters, as well knights
> as gentlemen's daughters, in the arte of musicke ; who
> through a long continuance of sycknes (my schollers which
> ...


http://archive.org/stream/charterhouseoflo00tayluoft/charterhouseoflo00tayluoft_djvu.txt


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Jews


 
You keep your Nazi shit far away from decent people.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> It took me about ten minutes, bored at work: one of the many letters to money lender Thomas Sutton, founder of Charterhouse school.


 
What's that got to do with anything?

You're not going to advance that as an ethical defence of usury?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Religious_restrictions_on_interest
> 
> Has an interesting tidbit


 
Oh God, we're going to go through the Calvin thing again.

Stop searching for "interesting tidbits" on Wikipedia and do some reading you _cretin._


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Shakespeare presents his character as a somewhat understandable figure though IIRC, not necessarily the scum of the earth.


 
Shakespeare was the son of a convicted usurer.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)




----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You're not going to advance that as an ethical defence of usury?


 It's someone describing a money lender in non-revolted terms. You can admit you asked the wrong question, but I've successfully falsified your earlier claim.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


"I thought it was a big cushion made of chocolate mousse! It's hard! it hurts."


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You keep your Nazi shit far away from decent people.


 
Pathetic.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Eggsury.


Do it with bears. Then it can be ursury.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Do it with bears. Then it can be ursury.


Lending beetles - buggury


----------



## JimW (Mar 26, 2013)

We nearly lost Agincourt because they'd lent out all the wood for the bows, the benighted practice of Yewsury.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Pathetic.


 
I'm serious.  Don't slander opposition to usury with "anti-semitism."  Don't slander "the Jews" with usury.  Don't do either.  Both have often proved to be disastrous mistakes.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> It's someone describing a money lender in non-revolted terms. You can admit you asked the wrong question, but I've successfully falsified your earlier claim.


 
FFS, the guy is begging him for a loan.  He's not going to revile him there is he?  (Although actually you can read the contempt he has for him clearly between the lines).

Well if you want to claim a victory with_ that_, you're welcome to it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm serious. Don't slander opposition to usury with "anti-semitism." Don't slander "the Jews" with usury. Don't do either. Both have often proved to be disastrous mistakes.


 
Fair enough. To avoid slandering you, I'll just assume you're a tit rather than a racist.

Btw, I never did the second of those things. What you're doing there is the equivalent of an 8 year old saying "no _you_ smell of poo".


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Fair enough. To avoid slandering you, I'll just assume you're a tit rather than a racist.


 
There we go.

If only some others around here would display a similar spirit of forgiveness and humility.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> FFS, the guy is begging him for a loan.  He's not going to revile him there is he?  (Although actually you can read the contempt he has for him clearly between the lines).
> 
> Well if you want to claim a victory with_ that_, you're welcome to it.


It's not a victory, it's simply an easily proven fact. Money lenders could be often well-respected people, just like Thomas Sutton was. I'm sure if I had access to an academic library rather than google I could find other examples. Your claim that money lenders were universally reviled before 1650 is a bold and stimulating one, bit not one that holds water.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Btw, I never did the second of those things.


 
You never did, that's true.

But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.

That's why one shouldn't do it.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You never did, that's true.
> 
> But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.
> 
> That's why one shouldn't do it.


 
That's some fucked-up logic there.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not a victory, it's simply an easily proven fact. Money lenders could be often well-respected people, just like Thomas Sutton was. I'm sure if I had access to an academic library rather than google I could find other examples. Your claim that money lenders were universally reviled before 1650 is a bold and stimulating one, bit not one that holds water.


 
You're right. Money-_lending _was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.

But you're right, this does not mean that money-_lenders _are universally reviled. I suppose they keep it pretty quiet if they can, for one thing.

But of course, drinkers and whorers aren't universally reviled either. I don't think this is a contradiction beyond the capacities of human hypocrisy to absorb.


----------



## andysays (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> The point is that he threw them out, not that they were there in the first place.


 
Unless their being there in the first place had been generally tolerated, he wouldn't have had the opportunity of throwing them out, would he...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You never did, that's true.
> 
> But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.
> 
> That's why one shouldn't do it.


 
how come you were going on about "shylock" in that post about greece though? i think that's what he was going on about. I don't think you're an anti-semite btw but I'm surely somebody on well informed on the reviled practice of usury as yourself could come up with the name of another famous usurer.


----------



## andysays (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?


 
'_When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less_.'


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You're right. Money-_lending _was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.
> 
> But you're right, this does not mean that money-_lenders _are universally reviled. I suppose they keep it pretty quiet if they can, for one thing.
> 
> But of course, drinkers and whorers aren't universally reviled either. I don't think this is a contradiction beyond the capacities of human hypocrisy to absorb.


Page 250 onwards talks in great detail about how money-lending at interest was widely accepted and practiced in the Roman Empire.
http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/2448/Economy_of_Roman_Empire.pdf

We can do this all evening if you want.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> That's some fucked-up logic there.


 
In the ghetto sense I presume.


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You're right. Money-_lending _was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.
> 
> But you're right, this does not mean that money-_lenders _are universally reviled.


 it's good we've resolved this point. We can now move on. 

So if money lenders were not universally reviled, what does that tell us about the society that they inhabited? Just like the double standard relating to sex outside of marriage, isn't it likely that this prejudice against money lending was simply something that was dreamt up by an out-of-touch priesthood? One that most people often ignored, as they went about their daily life untroubled by calls denouncing "usury" and "sinful sex"?


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

JimW said:


> We nearly lost Agincourt because they'd lent out all the wood for the bows, the benighted practice of Yewsury.


The other day someone lent me a large river in Yorkshire and expected me to repay them with twice that volume of water. I said fuck off, that's Ouseury.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Any fair-minded and literate person can easily see that the entire thrust of my critique is that the modern Western world is unique in both its ethical rationalization of usury and in the extent of its practice theroef.


 
Now any fair minded and literate person can read for themselves your own words on this. Let's remind ourselves of what you said about religion and usury:



phildwyer said:


> But I trust no-one will deny that, of all human activities save perhaps murder alone (with which it was equated by Cicero among others), usury has _everywhere, _and _at all times, universally _been regarded with the greatest possible hatred and contempt by the people, and condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion (Judaism very much included), and condemned on rational grounds by every major philosopher up to and of course including K. Marx. There are excellent reasons for that, as we are now learning.


 
I notice you've changed your mind a bit since then. Would you like to go through your previous post and point out the bits you got wrong for us all? After all, much of what you're saying later on in the thread is based on the premises you've just put out. These are the foundations your arguments rest on.

You said, everywhere, at all times, universally - you specfically included the west until people started to question you, then you changed your mind and decided that it wasn't universal, everywhere, and at all times, but that it means everywhere except the West except in modern times - modern in this instance meaning "the last 4 centuries" which is a pretty generous definition of modern for this topic. Just like when you claimed industrial wage-slavery no longer existed, you tried wriggling your way out of that that with "ah but I only meant the west" once people challenged you on it. But that's ok because even in the west the era of industrial wage-slavery is still very much with us. You dropped that topic afterwards and got into some more bullshit regarding the left in Iran and Turkey, but perhaps we should revisit it?



phildwyer said:


> If you can't even acknowledge that much, you're either illiterate or unfair-minded, and in any case unworthy of serious treatment or regard at any later date.


 
I'll acknowledge what's obvious - that you're selectively adding and revising bits of your theory after the various factual errors you've made start getting pulled to pieces. Doesn't work like that. Infact, like I pointed out earlier you actually contradict yourself with this stuff, it's like watching a 3rd rate Jazzz in action. case in point here:



phildwyer said:


> For fuck's sake, how difficult is it to use Google? These are not matters of dispute we are having here. Calvin says:


 
“I must reiterate that _when I approve of some usury_, I am not extending my approval to all its forms."

What's that? Is that the leader of a historic  religious order approving usury? Shurely shome mistake? You said no such thing existed!

I know full-well that the Calvinists disliked ususry, but they accepted it, with certain safeguards. Infact the quote you've just listed backs this up. So there you go, case closed, there's one religious group that approved of usury - Calvinists.



phildwyer said:


> Well you're wrong. The early modern period runs until 1640. Or 1688. Or 1789. But in any case you are wrong.


 
I accept that, and I never disputed it as "modern" - my criticism (which you ignored) was that it's misleading. What I'm saying is that when you come out with statements along the lines of "_usury has never been tolerated by any society or religion except the modern west"_ it has a somewhat different impact to saying _"usury has never been tolerated by any society or religion except for the last 400 years of protestantism in western europe" _you see how the two statement differ? One implies that religious groups accepting usury is a recent phenomenon, within living memory, the other one demonstrates how in actual fact usury has been reconciled with religion for centuries in our part of the world. This is you hiding your bullshit behind semantics, trying to use a specific definition of the word "modern" in an unsuitable context to get away from the fact you're demonstrably wrong. For what it's worth phil I did a few "modern history" modules myself as an undergrad and we started at the fall of the roman empire, not 1640.

You did the same thing with the Levellers too btw.

It's also what I said regarding your use of the phrase "the beginning of the capitalist era" because the beginning of the capitalist era is usually bookmarked around 1780-85 by most historians, with other historians locating tendencies of capitalist development on a smaller scale going back to the late 17th century that were part of a predominantly feudal economy (Ellen Meiksens Wood is the best place to start with this if you want to learn more btw) even using this very early kind of agrarian capitalism as "the beginnings of the capitalist era" which itself is incorrect, you're still off by a fair bit.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> The other day someone lent me a large river in Yorkshire and expected me to repay them with twice that volume of water. I said fuck off, that's Ouseury.


 
I over-slept the other day and got some pay deducted. I said fuck off, that's snoozury.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Shylock, not Shakespeare.
> 
> Speaking of Shylock, this very timely passage succinctly expresses the way that usury is traditionally conceived as an inherently aggressive, hostile, anti-social act. An act of war, essentially:
> 
> ...


 

why are you going on about shylock if you don't want people to connect usury to jews? there's got to be other famous usurers knocking around. Like Errol Damelin


----------



## andysays (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Any fair-minded and literate person can easily see that the entire thrust of my critique is that the modern Western world is unique in both its ethical rationalization of usury and in the extent of its practice theroef.


 
Translation: anyone who disagrees with me is either not fair-minded or illiterate or both...

Out of interest, do you persuade many people with this style of "argument"?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Page 250 onwards talks in great detail about how money-lending at interest was widely accepted and practiced in the Roman Empire.
> http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/2448/Economy_of_Roman_Empire.pdf
> 
> We can do this all evening if you want.


 
Cheers that looks like an interesting read.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 26, 2013)

andysays said:


> Translation: anyone who disagrees with me is either not fair-minded or illiterate or both...
> 
> Out of interest, do you persuade many people with this style of "argument"?


search for threads started by phildwyer and witness the horrible carnage


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Interestingly in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in AD 325 it was stipulated that clergy could lend out money at an interest rate of NO MORE THAN 1% a month, or about 12% APR. No restrictions applied to laity. It was only later that lending at interest was forbidden altogether.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia we have


> No absolute prohibition can be found in the Old Testament; at most, Exodus 22:25, and Deuteronomy 23:19-20, forbid the taking of interest by one Jew from another. In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence.
> 
> A certain number of authors, among them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application. Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man.
> 
> ...


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

Want more, phil?


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up


 
You know, I would really love a feature whereby derails could be flagged, enabling readers to skip past the crap in long threads.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 26, 2013)

there was a function in older board software where conversations could be forked. was a bit pointless though


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> why are you going on about shylock if you don't want people to connect usury to jews?


 
Because we must learn how anti-semites have made such connections in order to avoid making them ourselves.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up


Ahahaha! You honestly think the philishite is gonna give up that easily?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> there was a function in older board software where conversations could be forked. was a bit pointless though


 
Did it not work in practice then?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Cheers that looks like an interesting read.


 
Talk about the blind leading the blind.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Did it not work in practice then?


 
It was a bit like Communism really.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 26, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Did it not work in practice then?


With unlimited forking powers, threads end up looking like bristling trees, subdividing and subdividing into smaller and smaller conversations. Makes it impossible to follow or read through in date order.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Talk about the blind leading the blind.


 
This is the bit I found interesting, interesting because it destroys your assertation that usury is "universally at all times" condemned in all societies except for in the modern west:

page 251:



> The credit system in the cities of the Empire was very developed. The prosperity of trade and industry and the growing number of landowners that lived in the cities required ever more capital to finance the creation or improvement of their enterprises. At the same time there were many ‘capitalists’ who owned a lot of money. As such, it comes as no surprise that money lending became a profitable business, not only for a banker but also for any rich person that was able to lend money. Proper banks, private and state owned, came into existence in the Empire. Beigel adds to this and mentions that the Romans had a strong banking sector with money exchange, credit and auction businesses.


 
Anything to add phil?


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Ahahaha! You honestly think the philishite is gonna give up that easily?


Why are you keeping on the discussion? It's already been closed. Any more posts on a dead topic will just lead to confusion for the people who get directed to it.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Why are you keeping on the discussion? It's already been closed. Any more posts on a dead topic will just lead to confusion for the people who get directed to it.


Boredom I guess. I'm off to the gym now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

ymu said:


> I've learnt more from Captain Hurrah, Butchers and you than Oxford ever taught me (politics, economics and philosophy combined ). I don't regard being taught to bullshit well as an education. It's a passport into the kinds of jobs where employers go starry-eyed about Oxbridge and little else. It was the worst decision of my life and I didn't know anyone who wasn't more interested in the fucking Oxford Union than their degree who didn't agree with me (about the quality of the undergraduate courses, that is).
> 
> The syllabus is appalling across the board. You do get access to some great minds, but it's very rare that you will get a tutor who is up to much. The best strategy with lectures is to go to the ones with known good lecturers regardless of your subject. The ones that apply to what you're studying most likely are not being run in the term you are studying it and are often the most appallingly didactic summary of their most recent book/paper which you'd be a great deal better off studying alone.
> 
> It is much better for post-graduates, but the standard is not particularly high for them. I did some marking for them where three students were clear fails. The papers got fudged so that they all passed. I was appalled. There was nothing I could do.


 
Can you please try not to be sensible when I'm attempting to out-dwyer dwyer?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because we must learn how anti-semites have made such connections in order to avoid making them ourselves.


 
I shit in your mother's beard.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You are now openly saying that an openly anti-semitic article from an anti-semite in an anti-semitical magazine of a wider anti-semitical movemt is not not a problem. On the contrary, you now aggressively insist that the author of an article that argues that jews are behind everything and that then engages in mcarthyite jew-baiting (that in fact goes further than mcarthyism ever did by naming names) is someone to be listened to, to be respected and to learnt from.
> 
> And why do you say that Hemphill wrote it anyway? There is no correspondent listed? Why have you said that it is Hemphill? You've even messed that most basic of things up.




No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.

The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You, of course, don't mention that the case was thrown out and nullified.


"thrown out"? The bank was the plaintiff! The case was not 'thrown out'. The judgment was nullified. That's doesn't mean that it was ruled to have been incorrect.

But the point is that the president of the bank himself took the stand and admitted that their loans came from thin air, which they do. On these threads I generally quote several impeccable sources saying that, no-one ever quotes any respectable source saying otherwise.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.
> 
> The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.


 
It's disingenuous. It's not 'i', it's 'u'.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.
> 
> The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.


What Hemphill article?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> "thrown out"? The bank was the plaintiff! The case was not 'thrown out'. The judgment was nullified. That's doesn't mean that it was ruled to have been incorrect.


The judgement was - as i said - nullified,  

Nullified:
_Verb_
_Make legally null and void; invalidate._
_Make of no use or value; cancel out._

So yes, thrown out.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What Hemphill article?


I have very little desire to engage with you. If you can't follow threads properly then that's your issue.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 26, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> It's disingenuous. It's not 'i', it's 'u'.



See! It's contagious!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The judgement was - as i said - nullified,
> 
> Nullified:
> _Verb_
> ...


No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the _case_ being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being overruled. Legal terminology has precise meanings and the distinctions are crucial. If you don't appreciate those differences then please don't bother discussing them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

1. Sihhi pasted an article.
2. You replied to _that_ post by saying
3. "The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill."

Now, if you meant a different article than the one that the post that you replied to contained it may have sensible for you to have said so - or maybe replied to the post containing the article.

And, just for the record, your Hemphill hero _did_ also write for Father Coughlin's disgusting Social Justice anti-semitic rag - the one that contained all that red-baiting and open undisguised anti-semitisim. But, you, of course, would have no problem at all with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the _case_ being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being ruled incorrect.


The judgement from the case was nullified - nullified being a common way of saying thrown out. And it is still noticeable that you failed to mention this in your little cut and paste.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And, just for the record, your Hemphill hero _did_ also write for Father Coughlin's disgusting Social Justice anti-semitic rag - the one that contained all that red-baiting and open undisguised anti-semitisim. But, you, of course, would have no problem at all with that.


And presumably that is precisely the article *strictly about banking* that Sihhi posted earlier in the thread. My posts are not difficult to follow. The problem here is that you are champing at the bit to link my posts with anti-semitism. If you stepped away from that then you might read the thread properly. Nowhere do I claim Hemphill to be a 'hero'. Please don't put words in mouth. I don't intend to engage with you further, it will just result in endlessly tiresome correcting.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

That is one amongst a number that he wrote for them. This is what's happened here. Sihhi posted a number of articles from a well known anti-semitic magazine on a thread that has - at times - discussed anti-semitism, and you have responded by going _ooh i like the look of that anti-semitic mag. _A mag that reproduced the protocols of the elders of zion, a mag that you have been shown the naked anti-semitism of.




_This really happened. _


----------



## sihhi (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 1. Sihhi pasted an article.
> 2. You replied to _that_ post by saying
> 3. "The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill."
> 
> ...


 
Searching via Hemphill's full name sees him as a retired manager from the Atlanta Federal Reserve - local branch of the lender of last resort the Federal Reserve. He becomes an associate of Irving Fisher - and in 1934 writes the foreword to Fisher's 100% Money - (a manifesto for outright gold-backed currency one-dollar _must_ equal one fraction of an agreed gold weight, no gold no banks).
It is supported by a group of University of Chicago economists who in late 1933-early 1934 attack Roosevelt's proposals for serious Keynesian reform.
Its thrust is clear: "Our government has, in a significant sense, allowed the commercial banks to usurp its primary function of controlling the currency. Bank credit has become the predominant element in our circulating medium. Until the Civil War we tried 'free banking' with respect to note issue; at present we are still trying 'free banking' with respect to deposit currency. The latter system, like the former, gives us an unreliable and unhomogeneous medium; and it gives us a regulation or manipulation of currency which is totally perverse. Money is created when it should be destroyed, and destroyed when it should be created. Our much heralded achievements in control (witness the Federal Reserve System), being designed to yield greater "elasticity" of credit, have served only to aggravate the underlying difficulty."

ie credit should be restricted - that's what all this talk of usury amounts to - stop credit but carry on capitalism, its language is for "the outright abolition of deposit banking on the fractional-reserve principle."

FIsher's position is anti-Federal Reserve _and_ anti-nationalisation of all banking (a standard demand of the CPUSA and its slowly but steadily growing "front" organisations). Fisher says "There is much talk today of nationalizing our entire banking system. I believe this would be a mistake. All I would do is to take over the monetary work of banks, leaving real banking to bankers. This is the true American way. Banking, ie money lending, should be left to individual enterprise just as much as railroading or insurance or farming or the grocery business. But banking should not include the manufacture of money"

Hemphill and Fisher are part of the "respectable" intellectual opposition to Roosevelt, likewise the business community and army is making plans in secret in case the trade unionisation drives become too serious.

At the same time as all this we have an essentially religious Christian - (Protestant and Catholics unite) - social movement - Father Coughlin's _Social Justice_ on the back of his radio broadcasts - supportive of Huey Long popularising him well beyond Louisiana. As it grows it comes into conflict with the Catholic church (a basically conservative body) - its only recourse is to focus on non-Christian enemies. By 1936, Coughlin is wholly against Roosevelt who is a "great betrayer and liar ... who promised to drive the money changers from the temple, but has succeeded only in driving the farmers from their homesteads and the citizens from their homes in the cities."
It urges the Dixiecrats "to purge the man who claims to be a Democrat, from the Democratic party, and I mean Franklin Double-crossing Roosevelt." It also begins using open antisemitism in the face of the threat of "foreign entanglements" from about 1937 onwards. 

Hemphill - a supporter of Fisher and member of the “Healthy Currency” movement as it's called - has no objection to writing for Social Justice in spite of its other antisemitic articles. 'I just do Environment News for the UKIP e-newsletter' - a tenable position?

This is the kind of stuff Hemphill is producing in a 9 May 1938 issue of _Social Justice - 'Britain is doing well because it doesn't have the Federal Reserve':_

_




_

It's generic US right-wing populism - empty on its own terms, but able to create buzz. Even in its antisemitic phase over the years 1937-1940, after the failure of the 1936 populist candidate (when it was higher), Social Justice was able to command over a million subscribers - it wasn't empty fluff - the antisemitic resurgence in the late 1940s is explained in part by magazines like it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

even if you're not personally anti-semitic i would think that knowingly writing for an anti-semitic magazine means your personal ethics are a bit compromised to say the least. i would be horrified if i discovered that anything i wrote was being used for that kind of purpose.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

> 'I just do Environment News for the UKIP e-newsletter'


 
"I don't know anything about that racism stuff, I just write the gardening column for the BNP's members bulletin"


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the _case_ being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being overruled. *Legal terminology has precise meanings and the distinctions are crucial.* If you don't appreciate those differences then please don't bother discussing them.


 
This is ironic coming from you.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> "I don't know anything about that racism stuff, I just write the gardening column for the BNP's members bulletin"


 
'But I just do the cooking tips column for the Ku Klux Khan forum, I don't know anything about their white supremacist politics'.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the _case_ being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being overruled. Legal terminology has precise meanings and the distinctions are crucial. If you don't appreciate those differences then please don't bother discussing them.


Technically, I don't think you can lose the case if the judge rules there is no case to answer. Seeing as we're all being legally precise and whatnot.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Technically, I don't think you can lose the case if the judge rules there is no case to answer. Seeing as we're all being legally precise and whatnot.


What happened was that a JP massively over-estimated what they were fit to or legally allowed to judge on (basically it was a sort of small claims court ran by someone whose real legal role is to conduct marriages and such like) and so his judgement was almost immediately nullified - thrown out.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 26, 2013)

Crispy said:


> search for threads started by phildwyer and witness the horrible carnage


 
To be fair he's about the classiest troll on the 'net. You should have seen his work on the old Bad Subjects board back in the day.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What happened was that a JP massively over-estimated what they were fit to or legally allowed to judge on (basically it was a sort of small claims court ran by someone whose real legal role is to conduct marriages and such like) and so his judgement was almost immediately nullified - thrown out.


He's not on about that stupid TV licence case again is he? He's already had his arse handed to him on a plate on that thread, and the nanothermite thread, and the earthing thread, and the 'I can't believe it's not butter thread', to name but 4 this month.


----------



## Tony Pepperoni (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've had quite a lot of people telling me lately about how banks "create money out of nothing", how the federal reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" and other such nonsense. Now I know this is a load of bollocks but I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on. (The least mental lot I've come across putting this stuff out have been a group called "Positive Money" but their theories are just a re-heated version of the Zeitgeist nonsense).
> 
> A slightly less mental, but I think equally incorrect, version says that interest is the reason why our economy requires year on year compound growth. Even some otherwise clued up commentators appear to believe this. I know it's bollocks too, and I am just about able to explain why capitalism requires this regardless of usury. But I'm not all that patient and can't generally be arsed to write out an essay or make a 10 minute speech every time I come across it (especially as it would be so badly written that nobody would bother reading/listening to it).
> 
> ...


 
I sent this to SN yesterday but might as well post it for all to see, especially as two of you appear to be colossal ignoramuses. 

Ann Pettifor covers these issues and more in a 30 page review essay of Geoffrey Ingham’s Capitalism

*The power to create money ‘out of thin air’*
*Understanding capitalism’s elastic production of money and moving on beyond Adam Smith and ‘fractional reserve banking’.*

http://www.primeeconomics.org/wp-co...he-power-to-create-money-out-of-thin-air5.pdf

Contents 
Title Page
Introduction 3
Regulatory capture and recourse to complexity 7
The great divide in economics 9
Bankers as ‘intermediaries’ 11
The stories economists tell about money 11
The argument rages: Paul Krugman 12
Keynes and the doctrine of private credit-creation 13
The myth of ‘fractional reserve banking’ 15
The Chicago School and ‘fractional reserve banking’ 18
The Chicago Plan re-visited 19
Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater 21
Central banks and quantitative easing 23
Governments, ‘independent’ central banks & money 24
Private credit-money & the subordination of the state 25
Private markets as a ‘creditor god’ 26
Blaming the inflation of the ‘70s on its victims 27
Ingham’s list: the missing economists 28
Conclusion 29


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 26, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He's not on about that stupid TV licence case again is he? He's already had his arse handed to him on a plate on that thread, and the nanothermite thread, and the earthing thread, and the 'I can't believe it's not butter thread', to name but 4 this month.


He's on about some other meaningless case from 40+ years ago where a registrar decided that jazzz is legally correct.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

Tony Pepperoni and you waited 6 months to post that as your first post because?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

It's not because you're LLETSA back again, perchance?


----------



## Tony Pepperoni (Mar 26, 2013)

Not guilty your honour.  I didn't intend on ever getting involved wrt posting here.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

Don't worry, urban sucks you in 

welcome comrade.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 26, 2013)

Here is an article that Hemphill wrote for _Social Justice_ in November 1938. It's not directly anti-semitic - no mention of Jews or Jewesses - but instead of focusing on other multi-national financial firms it picks out "the Rothschilds" as being the only one that matters because the others are in hock to it.

This group then likely no mote than 200 separate firms— dominated in the final analysis, by the Rothschilds family — own and control about all the money in the world that is available for large scale financing. They can and do finance both sides of any modern war. No large scale war would be possible without their permission and co-operation.

Right at the bottom of the seventh column it states that the Rothschilds put Hitler into power (1933) and Mussolini (1922)






Its solution is _100%_ _American_ banking: "This fraternity of [Rothschild-controlled] International Bankers dominates but does not actually own the 16,000 independent commercial banks of this country. Their domination could be dissipated. ...
We are more nearly autonomous economically, than any other nation, and with a determined government, willing to pass the necessary measures controlling the import or export of goods and capital, we could insulate this nation from the foreign section of these financial hi-jackers."

The same issue has an article on behalf of the south with the essential background of the thing racialist but not outright neo-Confederate. it is an updated form of 'conspiracy against the South'  'the northern Yankees that caused the war':








It explains later: "Long before the South was ground under the banker's heel by a vicious money system that has pauperized it for seventy-five years, her greatest son, Thomas Jefferson, at the dawn of our Government, pointed to the poverty and inevitable depressions that would flow from our present money machine. Jefferson told Southerners and the rest of us that our eyes were not open to the true cause of our economic woes. For seventy-five years the South tag been running around in circles, placing the blame on everything and anything as the cause of its poverty without once alighting on the true reason that Jefferson's unerring instinct seized upon as far back as 1791 when our present money machine was devised by a banker Alexander Hamilton."

The problem, apparently, is "the moneyless condition of the South" caused by northern bankers (a similar story was spun by neo-Confederate tendencies lurking within the KKK etc - the north never gave the South the finances to reform its agricultural system to reform slavery appropriately, the north gave all the finances to the blacks in "Radical Reconstruction" a vile myth) Ron Paul today _still_ basically explains that slavery could have been ended by simple discussions and the north treating the South more fairly.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

fascinating stuff sihhi fair play


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 
The previous Hemphill article was bang on and so too is this one.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> The previous Hemphill article was bang on and so too is this one.


In what regard was it 'bang on'?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 26, 2013)

Coughlin isn't the only figure - the positions advocated by certain posters are worthless and/or dangerous depending on the circumstances (empty sleight-of-hand and ultimately relying on slave-owner anti-barbarians like Cicero or anti-semites like Henry Ford). It thrives by constantly, deliberately confusing Nazism and state socialism.

So in 1938 when Henry Wallace (to the left of Roosevelt, Agriculture Secretary and later 1948 CPUSA-supported Peace and Progress candidate) urges nationalisation of farmland in USA, Coughlin paints him as_ both_ Nazi and Communist. (He also supported nationalisation of banks - which banker conspiracists are also set against):








When Coughlin begins to attract heat from the Church again and the wider press after his antisemitic coverage - he allows select Americanised non-Yiddish speaking Jews to write in his publication to assert Jews hate socialism more than anyone else and want to see it removed from labor unions. He begins the line of attack that he is _saving_ Jews from a Nazi-like fate:






This stuff has been in Britain before - look at the New Party Oswald Moseley formed and Strachey, AJ Cook and others were able to sign up to, it attacks finance capital - particularly international finance capital - as _the_ source of the 1929 Depression and Britain's problems.
Obviously Moseley went on to form a BUF, taking the conspiracy of _big finance _one step further to _Jewish big finance_.

Coughlin's movement doesn't pick up adherents at the outset by this kind of stuff - that comes after generalised populism - the farmers are poor, the sharecroppers are told to move on, the workers have no jobs, our children are starving; the hypocrite immoral un-Christian rich are doing well though; stick close to one another and Jesus radio broadcasts that Coughlin is popular for.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


>


 

they asked for it.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 26, 2013)

I ask again Jazzz, which aspects of the articles by Hemphill are 'bang on'?


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 26, 2013)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I ask again Jazzz, which aspects of the articles by Hemphill are 'bang on'?



I hear they are a dab hand at punctuation....


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

The Hemphill article is _bang on_ in no respect, and virtually all of its facts and assertions (barring its point about the relative isolation of American economy) are _wholly false_. it outlines _a Rothschild conspiracy against the world_ controlling both sides in _any inter-nation war._

This is still asserted by racist anti-Illuminati US conspiracists such as Andrew Carrington Hitchcock - "1929: The Rothschilds crash the United States economy by contracting the money supply." the claim that international finance in and of itself provoked the Great Depression.

and anti-semitic British conspiracist David Icke: "Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield 'Star of David' symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt. The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship. The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they've done it before." ie that Rothschilds eased Hitler into power

and general End the Fed conspiracism: "Zionist Jews own and run the Federal Reserve Bank that the US government continually borrows from...and is in debt to. Napoleon said: When a government is dependent for money upon the bankers, they and not the government leaders control the nation. This is because the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Financiers are without patriotism and without decency. The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 Zionist Jewish-owned & associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head"


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Rothschild... Jewish... Israel ... Palestine ... Jewish ... Rothschilds... Zionist Jewish-owned & associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head


 
You're beginning to sound a tad weird and obsessive tbf.

Why are you going on about magazine articles from the 1930s, instead of concentrating on the many lucid critiques of usury that are being published today?

This one is especially good, I don't suppose any of you lot have read it?

http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Nation-Corporate-Criminals-Corruption/dp/030795255X


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> The previous Hemphill article was bang on and so too is this one.


 
Wouldn't you be better off on Stormfront?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Coughlin... anti-semites like Henry Ford... Nazism... in 1938 when Henry Wallace...Roosevelt.... Coughlin... Nazi and Communist.... nationalisation of banks... non-Yiddish speaking Jews... Jews hate socialism... _saving_ Jews from a Nazi-like fate... Oswald Moseley... _Jewish big finance_.... un-Christian rich ... Coughlin


 
You're definitely barking up the wrong tree, and may well be barking mad too.

All of this is quite historically interesting, in a mad, obsessed sort of way but it has _nothing_ to do with today's critiques of usury. It is stupid and dangerous to suggest that it does.

This does, on the other hand. I don't suppose anyone here knows it?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Payoff-Wall-Street-Always/dp/1935212966/ref=pd_sim_b_3


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> ultimately relying on slave-owner anti-barbarians like Cicero


 
Got to say though, this is good. Absolutely insane, but good stuff.

I've honestly never encountered anyone who was _*against Cicero*_ before.

What about slave-owner anti-barbarian Socrates? Any opinion? Going to denounce Western culture's 'ultimate reliance' on him too?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Jew... Jews.... Jew... Jewish... Jew.... Coughlin... Jew.... Ford... Jewish .... Jews....


 
Oh man, you are so fucking crazy.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Jew... Rothschilds ... anti-semitic... Jewish ... Israel... New World Order... Jew ... Jew... Jewish Rothschilds... Israel.... Jew...


 


Delroy Booth said:


> fascinating stuff sihhi fair play


 
See this is the real danger. Delbert is impressed.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> To be fair he's about the classiest troll on the 'net. You should have seen his work on the old Bad Subjects board back in the day.


 
My God, that's going back a ways now. When I was young and cruel.

I still see a bit of Doug Henwood and a few others, Annalee dragged me round the lap-dancing clubs of North Beach... I could tell you the stories but then I'd have to kill you...


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air? Because if not we can relax and move on.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air? Because if not we can relax and move on.


That's right, just evade all the questions people have been asking and the antisemitic sources and 'relax'. And stop using 'we'. I don't think anyone is agreeing with you at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air?


 
Not really.

They've passed through the denial and anger, and most of them are over the bargaining stage too. Although depression's still a problem for some of them, they mostly arrived at acceptance 3 or 4 pages ago.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> That's right, just evade all the questions people have been asking... and 'relax'. And stop using 'we'.


okay, deal.  (note: responses to Sihhi are based on his sources)

Are you contesting that money is created by banks out of thin air? After all, this is subject of the thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> the antisemitic sources


 
Don't _you _start.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really.
> 
> They've passed through the denial and anger, and most of them are over the bargaining stage too. Although depression's still a problem for some of them, they mostly arrived at acceptance 3 or 4 pages ago.


I hope so Phil. I don't know how best to deal with helping people through cognitive dissonance. I suppose it is something a grieving process. I am probably too attached to the debate. But I want people to get it, you know? They don't have to thank me, or admit I was right.

I guess that is what this thread is really. "How can we cleverly readjust our belief system, now we really know that something is totally fucked up with the banks, in a way that doesn't actually admit the lunatics were the sane ones after all?"


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I hope so Phil. I don't know how best to deal with helping people through cognitive dissonance. I suppose it is something a grieving process. I am probably too attached to the debate. But I want people to get it, you know? They don't have to thank me, or admit I was right.


 
Not only will they not do that, they will soon tell you that it was _them _who were saying that the banks create money out of thin air, and _you _who were denying it.

That's what people are like.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I guess that is what this thread is really. "How can we cleverly readjust our belief system, now we really know that something is totally fucked up with the banks, in a way that doesn't actually admit the lunatics were the sane ones after all?"


 
I don't think ordinary people have ever been in any doubt that money is entirely illusory. As I said before, that's about as obvious as anything gets.

So obviously educated people have never doubted it either.

The people who doubt it are the _half-_educated, the gullible, easily-indoctrinated, those who've taken a degree in 'economics,' those who scour Wikipedia for 'interesting tidbits,' those who think they've learned a thing or two about how the world works scientifically like. _Those _are the mad ones.


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You're beginning to sound a tad weird and obsessive tbf.


You are a card; someone engages you and Jazz on your bizzarro ground, and surprise surprise the terminology that comes with the territory sounds weird and obsessive. It ought to be a sobering moment for you Phil, but I know it won't be.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air? Because if not we can relax and move on.


Why did they need bailing out?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Why did they need bailing out?


 
Get out of here Blagsta you Nazi scum.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> You are a card; someone engages you and Jazz on your bizzarro ground


 
Jazzz can look after himself.

But I'd like you to inform me why you think Sihhi's mad obsession with Jews has anything to do with _me._


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

See here's the thing. _ No-one was talking about "the Jews." _I wasn't, Jazzz wasn't, I don't remember anyone with a decent economic analysis doing so (as you'd expect).

Who comes along and tries to make this all about "the Jews?"

Who does that? Who does it in general? Who does it here? And why do they do it?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> You are a card; someone engages you and Jazz on your bizzarro ground


 
This is me then is it? It's not Sihhi, it's me. Is it?



sihhi said:


> Jew... Rothschild.... Jew.... Ford.... Jewish conspiracy.... Jew.... Jewish.... rich non-Gentlies... Jews....Jew... Jewish... Jew...


 
Actually, forget it. I'm not getting sucked in to Sihhiland and nor should you.

Leave these unfortunates to their obsessions.

This is a very good book on usury _*today.*_ Has anyone here read it, or perhaps any other such book?

http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Nation-Corporate-Criminals-Corruption/dp/030795255X/ref=pd_cp_b_3


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What about slave-owner anti-barbarian Socrates? Any opinion? Going to denounce Western culture's 'ultimate reliance' on him too?


 Yes, fuck him.


> Socrates, mine enemy
> Mine enemy and yours
> Socrates I do defy by walking on all fours
> I curse the Age of Reason
> ...


 belboid


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Yes, fuck him.


 
*"Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned - that's Shigalovism."*

Fyodor Dostoevsky, _Devils_

That's Sihhi that is.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> *"Cicero will have his tongue cut out, Copernicus will have his eyes put out, Shakespeare will be stoned - that's Shigalovism."*


 Since all those mentioned are already dead, I'm guessing the speaker is talking metaphorically, i.e. it's not real.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Since all those mentioned are already dead, I'm guessing the speaker is talking metaphorically, i.e. it's not real.


 
Oh it's real alright.  Remind you of anyone?

"He rejects morality itself altogether, and holds with the last new principle of general destruction for the sake of ultimate good. He demands already more than a hundred million heads for the establishment of common sense in Europe; many more than they demanded at the last Peace Congress. Alexey Nilitch goes further than anyone in that sense."

The engineer listened with a pale and contemptuous smile. For half a minute every one was silent.

"All this is stupid, Liputin," Mr. Kirillov observed at last, with a certain dignity.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh it's real alright.


 I think you're guilty of magical thinking here.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> I think you're guilty of magical thinking here.


 
Very good.

But seriously, it's an insight into the kind of mentality that would dismiss Cicero as an "anti-barbarian slave-owner."  It's an insight into what that mentality is capable of doing if it ever gets near power.  It was written over 50 years before it came true.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> But seriously, it's an insight into the kind of mentality that would dismiss Cicero as an "anti-barbarian slave-owner."  It's an insight into what that mentality is capable of doing if it ever gets near power.  It was written over 50 years before it came true.


 Are there any other slave owners who you think get a free pass because they said some nice things? Thomas Jefferson? I think he's already been quoted as an anti-banker.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Are there any other slave owners who you think get a free pass because they said some nice things?


 
Every document of civilization is also a document of barbarism.

If you ever forget that, you will soon get raving maniacs saying this:

"_God_ is the _pain_ of the _fear_ of _death_. _He_ who _overcomes pain_ and _fear will himself become God_. _Then there will_ be a _new life_, a _new man_, _everything new_ ... _Then history will_ be _divided into two parts_: from the _gorilla_ to the _destruction_ of _God_, and from the _destruction_ of God to..."

"To the gorilla?"


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Every document of civilization is also a document of barbarism.


 That's why barbarism and civilization aren't useful categories. Or at least, not ones that can be assigned moral worth.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air? Because if not we can relax and move on.


 
Yes. Everyone sane is doing that.

The only ones not doing so are Dwyer the increasingly obvious and boring troll (he may have been good once but well...) and you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I hope so Phil. I don't know how best to deal with helping people through cognitive dissonance. I suppose it is something a grieving process. I am probably too attached to the debate. But I want people to get it, you know? They don't have to thank me, or admit I was right.
> 
> I guess that is what this thread is really. "How can we cleverly readjust our belief system, now we really know that something is totally fucked up with the banks, in a way that doesn't actually admit the lunatics were the sane ones after all?"


 
The irony in this post is enough to make your eyes bleed.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

The irony is so intense it can cure anaemia


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Is anyone actually contesting that banks create money out of thin air? Because if not we can relax and move on.


I'm not going to relax while you're spreading dangerous nonsense about an international banking conspiracy


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> See here's the thing. _ No-one was talking about "the Jews." _I wasn't, Jazzz wasn't, I don't remember anyone with a decent economic analysis doing so (as you'd expect).
> 
> Who comes along and tries to make this all about "the Jews?"
> 
> Who does that? Who does it in general? Who does it here? And why do they do it?


 
THEY do


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> I'm not going to relax while you're spreading dangerous nonsense about an international banking conspiracy


 
Do you not believe in the existence of an international banking conspiracy then?

Actually "conspiracy" is the wrong word, because it implies secrecy.  But the banks have been stealing the world quite openly, they don't need to bother with secrecy, because no-one seems to care what they do.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> THEY do


 
Nazis do.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Nazis do.


 
from the moon


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> from the moon


 
From Birmingham.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 27, 2013)

you've gotta give phil credit really this thread is performance art


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> you've gotta give phil credit really this thread is performance art


No you don't.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

But where do the bears come into it


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But where do the bears come into it


Smashing grannies?


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Do you not believe in the existence of an international banking conspiracy then?
> 
> Actually "conspiracy" is the wrong word, because it implies secrecy.  But the banks have been stealing the world quite openly, they don't need to bother with secrecy, because no-one seems to care what they do.


I don't think that the international banks are the ones calling the shots, that the poor little local banks, the poor little nation states are the victims of the evil banks. The trope of the international banking conspiracy is basically a _pro capitalist_ and nationalist cliche, very often part of to xenophobic politics.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But where do the bears come into it


It's because the banks that steal your money are Big Dippers into your pockets


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> you've gotta give phil credit really this thread is performance art


 
If so, I'm not the artist.

In terms of debate, I've honestly never seen such a one-sided thread in my life. For those who can't be bothered reading it, it goes like this:

Jazzz: "Look the banks are stealing from us by inventing fictional forms of money."
Mob: "Stop blaming the Jews for everything, you anti-semite."
Jazzz: "No really, it's true. Look at this, and this, and this, and this."
Mob: "In 1937 Henry Ford wiped his bum with an article that used a similar phrase about Mrs. Goldberg's little boy. Why are you blaming the Jews?"
Dwyer: "Jazzz is right actually. Have you read any of these interesting new books that explain why?"
Mob: "Hahahahahahahaha... _I'm mad I am.... _down with Cicero...."

You can probably guess the rest.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

All hail King Mob, I say


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

I've put a spell on Jazz and Dwyer, should take effect in a couple hours.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> The previous Hemphill article was bang on and so too is this one.


Deeper and deeper. I've lost count of the number of time jazzz has paraded his grandparent(s) fleeing nazi germany to cover up his wallowing in anti-semitism - here we find him enthusiastically endorsing the poisonous rubbish that forced them to flee. Here we see jazzz recapitulating the process with himself dressed in the nazi uniform. What on earth is going on in his mind?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> The trope of the international banking conspiracy is basically a _pro capitalist_ and nationalist cliche, very often part of to xenophobic politics.


 
No it fucking isn't.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the bankers themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Colossal-Failure-Common-Sense-Collapse/dp/0307588343


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Deeper and deeper. I've lost count of the number of time jazzz has paraded his grandparent(s) fleeing nazi germany to cover up his wallowing in anti-semitism - here we find him enthusiastically endorsing the poisonous rubbish that forced them to flee. Here we see jazzz recapitulating the process with himself dressed in the nazi uniform. What on earth is going on in his mind?


What's that quote about not understanding the past and being doomed to repeat it?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What's that quote about not understanding the past and being doomed to repeat it?


 
Get lost Blagsta you Nazi.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No it fucking isn't.
> 
> If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the bankers themselves:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Colossal-Failure-Common-Sense-Collapse/dp/0307588343


This post contains swearing and a link to buy a book. It's basically devoid of content.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Deeper and deeper. I've lost count of the number of time jazzz has paraded his grandparent(s) fleeing nazi germany to cover up his wallowing in anti-semitism - here we find him enthusiastically endorsing the poisonous rubbish that forced them to flee. Here we see jazzz recapitulating the process with himself dressed in the nazi uniform. What on earth is going on in his mind?


 Part of the reason has to be the very power of that image, the nazi uniform, which makes us forget that right-wing theories about "international bankers" calling the shots were common across much of Europe and north america. So people nowadays can embrace all sorts of xenophobic theories while at the same time thinking "i'm not a nazi. I just think the rothschilds are running the world".


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> This post contains swearing and a link to buy a book. It's basically devoid of content.


 
It seems you can't take a hint.

I'm suggesting that there are in fact _many _such books--that is to say, books _by bankers themselves_--as well as many other books by critics of banks, that basically endorse, repeat and demonstrate exactly what Jazzz and I have been saying here.

In fact the last couple of years has witnessed a _veritable __tidal wave_ of such books. An _avalanche _of texts that anticipate, and in my case at least, strongly influence our diagnoses of the situation.

You should read them. Instead of poring over 1930s ghouls like Father Coughlin and madly, obsessively trying to sniff out anti-semitism where it so _fucking_ obviously doesn't exist. Jesus Christ Almighty.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Part of the reason has to be the very power of that image, the nazi uniform, which makes us forget that right-wing theories about "international bankers" calling the shots were common across much of Europe and north america. So people nowadays can embrace all sorts of xenophobic theories while at the same time thinking "i'm not a nazi. I just think the rothschilds are running the world".


Yes, the formal/surface denazification of anti-semitism has proven very useful to the nazis and the anti-semites both.

I think the answer to my last question is either not very much or something very nasty.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It seems you can't take a hint.
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting that there are in fact _many _such books--that is to say, books _by bankers themselves_--as well as many other books by critics of banks, that basically endorse, repeat and demonstrate exactly what Jazzz and I have been saying here.
> ...


These would be the bankers whose theories on how the economy works has led us to this situation, yes? And you want us to read their books and believe what is in them, yes? Even by your own abysmal standards this is pretty stupid.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm suggesting that there are in fact _many _such books--that is to say, books _by bankers themselves_--as well as many other books by critics of banks, that basically endorse, repeat and demonstrate exactly what Jazzz and I have been saying here.


 It's no use to anyone if you just post up links to buy books. You need to do better than this if you're going to construct a case that'll win over anyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> These would be the bankers whose theories on how the economy works has led us to this situation, yes? And you want us to read their books and believe what is in them, yes? Even by your own abysmal standards this is pretty stupid.


This is a contradiction that runs thorugh many of the loon like jazzz and the softer types too - it's all the bankers fault followed by here is a banker saying so. It's interesting that their perspective can also only work on the model of _exposes by _insiders to the secrets rather than any sort of critical investigation.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the answer to my last question is either not very much or something very nasty.


 I think people like jazz are ones happy to be true believers, and to surf through life protected by the human brain's ability to safeguard its beliefs using confirmation bias and whatnot.

Plus the whole support network of influential people pushing this sort of thing.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> So people nowadays can embrace all sorts of xenophobic theories while at the same time thinking "i'm not a nazi. I just think the rothschilds are running the world".


 
What do they run then?  A fucking whelk stall?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is a contradiction that runs thorugh many of the loon like jazzz and the softer types too - it's all the bankers fault followed by here is a banker saying so. It's interesting that their perspective can also only work on the model of _exposes by _insiders to the secrets rather than any sort of critical investigation.


Fits well in with conspiraloon theme tho - _conspiracy exposed by insider_! _We ate babies with our bubbly!_


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What do they run then? A fucking whelk stall?


 
If the Rothschilds run the world, how was Lloyd George able to divest their British branch of a considerable chunk of their fortune, when he raised the tax levels in the (IIRC) 1909 People's Budget?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> What do they run then? A fucking whelk stall?


 

no cos shellfish aren't kosher


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> If the Rothschilds run the world, how was Lloyd George able to divest their British branch of a considerable chunk of their fortune, when he raised the tax levels in the (IIRC) 1909 People's Budget?


Aliens dude. Come OOOOOON, this is simple.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is a contradiction that runs thorugh many of the loon like jazzz and the softer types too - it's all the bankers fault followed by here is a banker saying so. It's interesting that their perspective can also only work on the model of _exposes by _insiders to the secrets rather than any sort of critical investigation.


 
There's a mini-industry of this stuff though, i bet the janitor who sweeps the floors in Goldman Sachs puts a book out exposing the secrets of the banking conspiracy, it's a good money spinner. If I was a banker who'd retired at 35 I'd see the appeal of doing that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> you've gotta give phil credit really this thread is performance art


it's a pity his performance is so shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is a contradiction that runs thorugh many of the loon like jazzz and the softer types too - it's all the bankers fault followed by here is a banker saying so.


 
No contradiction at all.  The problem is money, the nature of money itself, and especially the form it has taken over the last decade.  Even those human beings who profit from serving the ends of money understand the problem, they understand it very well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No contradiction at all. The problem is money, the nature of money itself, and especially the form it has taken over the last decade. Even those human beings who profit from serving the ends of money understand the problem, they understand it very well.


if they understand it so well NOW why didn't they understand it so well before fucking it all up?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No contradiction at all. The problem is money, the nature of money itself, and especially the form it has taken over the last decade. Even those human beings who profit from serving the ends of money understand the problem, they understand it very well.


Witches-symbols-usury-witches. Yeah we got it now pancake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It seems you can't take a hint.
> 
> I'm suggesting that there are in fact _many _such books--that is to say, books _by bankers themselves_--as well as many other books by critics of banks, that basically endorse, repeat and demonstrate exactly what Jazzz and I have been saying here.
> 
> ...


next week: dwyer recommends people read der sturmer to get to the nub of judaism.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Witches-symbols-usury-witches. Yeah we got it now pancake.


Didn't we already sort out the usury red herring in another thread? Can we just link to it now, to avoid derailing us from the thread's topci, of loon theories around banking?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Witches-symbols-usury-witches.


 
Stop chattering like an ape and eat your banana.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Stop chattering like an ape and eat your banana.


it's strange how truxta's 'ape-like- chatter is so much more sensible than your academic farting.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if they understand it so well NOW why didn't they understand it so well before fucking it all up?


 
Exodus 33
_21:_ And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 
_22:_ And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 
_23:_ And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Exodus 33
> _21:_ And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
> _22:_ And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
> _23:_ And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


you're making an arse of yourself. again.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're making an arse of yourself. again.


 
This is what you get for casting pearls before swine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> This is what you get for casting pearls before swine.


and it's richly deserved.


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No contradiction at all. The problem is money, the nature of money itself, and especially the form it has taken over the last decade...


What particular qualitative change within the last decade do you have in mind here?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the answer to my last question is either not very much or something very nasty.


 
I think the answer to your last question is probably "fuck off." That's both really isn't it?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> What particular qualitative change within the last decade do you have in mind here?


 
Derivatives.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Money does not exist. Where _is _all this so-called "money" they're going on about then, if it's so important? Show it to us.


 
_God does not exist. Where is this so-called "God" they're going on about then, if it's so important? Show it to us._

So I guess if your crude/vulgar empiricism has achieved anything on its own terms, it's your admission of God's non existence after years of attempting to argue the opposite



phildwyer said:


> Yes it is, because of the time value of money, which means that money is more valuable in the future than the present


There's been so much nonsense written by you on this thread but this really stuck out as idiocy personified. Time value of money/present value is a straight forward concept that says a sum of money in X years time has a different buying power than that same sum in the present. Whether that value is higher or lower depends upon interest rates and inflation rates, i.e. it is completely silent on what you claim it says. That you link to a wikipedia article on one thing it to try and back up your claim of something else, shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of it on your part.

You try locking £100 in a room for twenty years and see how much more valuable it is when you take it out - this is the essence of your claim above, which is palpable nonsense

And while putting it in a bank for twenty years at say 2% interest would increase the nominal amount of it - unless inflation has been consistently below 2% a year (unlikely, if you were getting 2% interest rate on the deposit), it's real value/purchasing power will have fallen considerably over twenty years - so again worth a lot less in the future than now

The only time that money is worth more in the future than in the present is in periods of deflation, which are few and far between, relatively short term and represent the exception not the norm 

This is the danger of looking up things you don't understand on wikipedia and hoping no one will catch you out - idiot

Capital obviously accumulates however, but not through some magic bean nonsense like you describe above. 'It' does so through exploiting and appropriating from Labour, and can do so only because a specific set of social relations exist at a particular time that allows 'it' to do so. It's not some universal or ahistorical inherent characteristic.

I feel sorry for the Oxford University educated Professor though. Getting his arse handed to him so routinely (both on here and in academic life as well) must fill him with so much self doubt and anxiety about his self worth. Hence his increasingly bizarre and desperate behaviour on here and, from what I hear, in real life as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Derivatives.


derivatives have been traded for some centuries now. you've not really got your finger on the pulse of the financial markets, have you?


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Derivatives.


Are they that new (genuine question)? I thought it was more a snowballing/acceleration of pre-existing dynamics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> Are they that new (genuine question)? I thought it was more a snowballing/acceleration of pre-existing dynamics.


no they're not that new and yes he is an ignorant pig.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> Are they that new (genuine question)? I thought it was more a snowballing/acceleration of pre-existing dynamics.


Old as the fucking hills.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> derivatives have been traded for some centuries now. you've not really got your finger on the pulse of the financial markets, have you?


 
Fool, idiot and complete cretin.

No-one would deny that the so-called derivatives market has undergone a qualitative change--to be specific, an enormous, unprecedented expansion to the point where it now dominates the entire so-called financial sector--over the last decade.

No-one that is, except you.

Now if you don't mind, it's very late here and I must get some rest.  If I can be bothered, I may come back to explain to you what a "derivative" is, and why you should care, in the morning.


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Old as the fucking hills.


hill don't really exist, you know. They may look like they protrude from the earth's surface at a distance, but when you stand on top of one and look at the horizon you can't see them any more.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> Are they that new (genuine question)? I thought it was more a snowballing/acceleration of pre-existing dynamics.


 
Well that's yer quantitative change becoming qualitative change innit.

Really got to go to bed now...


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> hill don't really exist, you know. They may look like they protrude from the earth's surface at a distance, but when you stand on top of one and look at the horizon you can't see them any more.


 
And see those cows in the distance, they really are that small, and the way the sun looks like it's moving over the earth - that's really what is happening

welcome to vulgar political economy


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well that's yer quantitative change becoming qualitative change innit.
> 
> Really got to go to bed now...


But that does seem to be looking at the trees and so missing the wood - the underlying processes that they're just the latest phenomenon to emerge out of.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> hill don't really exist, you know. They may look like they protrude from the earth's surface at a distance, but when you stand on top of one and look at the horizon you can't see them any more.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Excellent - Hemphill - the one jazzz thinks is 'bang on' for his articles in the anti-semitic journal of the anti-semitic coughlin movement - has had his work reproduced by the Islamic Party of Britain of noted loon and anti-semite Mohamed Nasseem - that's the notoriously homophobic and anti-semitic Islamic Party of Britain that reprints stuff from open nazis and facists like Alexander Baron.

And there's a tale to be told about Jazz's links with the same Mohamed Nassem through his (Jazzz's that is) link with infamous disgraced holocaust denier Nick Kollerstrom, the same holocaust denier who made a film with Tony Farrell, the key expert witness in jazzz's laughable tv licence case.

Small world innit?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent - Hemphill - the one one jazzz thinks is 'bang on' for his articles in the anti-semitic journal of the anti-semitic coughlin movement has had his work reproduced by the Islamic Party of Britain of noted loon and anti-semite Mohamed Nasseem - that's the notoriously homophobic and anti-semitic Islamic Party of Britain that reprints stuff from open nazis and facists like Alexander Baron.
> 
> And there's a tale to be told about Jazz's links with the same Mohamed Nassem through his (Jazzz's that is) link with infamous disgraced holocaust denier Nick Kollerstrom, the same holocaust denier who made a film with Tony Farrell, the key expert witness in jazzz's laughable tv licence case.
> 
> Small world innit?


Six degrees of Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Fool, idiot and complete cretin.
> 
> No-one would deny that the so-called derivatives market has undergone a qualitative change--to be specific, an enormous, unprecedented expansion to the point where it now dominates the entire so-called financial sector--over the last decade.
> 
> ...


please don't bother


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 27, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> no cos shellfish aren't kosher


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If so, I'm not the artist.
> 
> In terms of debate, I've honestly never seen such a one-sided thread in my life. For those who can't be bothered reading it, it goes like this:
> 
> ...


 
Phil, the topic of banking is not itself inherently anti-Semitic, and it's not talking about banks and interest that makes people suspicious of you or Jazzz . It's the use of certain words and phrases, and the links to dodgy sources, that raises eyebrows. Even using the term 'usury' as opposed to simply 'interest' rings alarm bells in my mind. And when you then go on to talk about 'Shylocks' who should be 'thrown into the Tiber in a sack full of vipers like the good old days', you just make things worse for yourself. For someone who often talks about the symbolic power of money (or whatever it is you waffle on about), you would think that you might grasp the symbolic power of _words_, and the signifiers that are attached to them.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 27, 2013)

This entire thread is fucking disgusting.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> But that does seem to be looking at the trees and so missing the wood - the underlying processes that they're just the latest phenomenon to emerge out of.


 
That's how the law of quantitative change becoming qualitative change works though isn't it.

At first, as the name implies, derivatives are merely "derived from" some allegedly more "real" underlying commodity. 

And then, after a certain point which the Western economy passed about 5 years ago when the bunch of clowns here assembled were too busy reading Father Coughlin to notice, they become autonomous and powerful in themselves. 

It's a process repeated by all forms of money, though at far greater velocity now than was possible before, and therefore also with far greater danger, on account of computers and that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This entire thread is fucking disgusting.


In what way?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> This entire thread is fucking disgusting.


 
I like a man who lives up to his tagline.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In what way?


 
25 pages of circle jerking, name calling, and bullying.

On both sides.


Yay Urbanz!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

it's not bullying to expose it when people are saying dodgy shit about an international banking conspiracy. and if somebody thinks it is, tough fucking shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Phil, the topic of banking is not itself inherently anti-Semitic, and it's not talking about banks and interest that makes people suspicious of you or Jazzz . It's the use of certain words and phrases, and the links to dodgy sources, that raises eyebrows. Even using the term 'usury' as opposed to simply 'interest' rings alarm bells in my mind. And when you then go on to talk about 'Shylocks' who should be 'thrown into the Tiber in a sack full of vipers like the good old days', you just make things worse for yourself. For someone who often talks about the symbolic power of money (or whatever it is you waffle on about), you would think that you might grasp the symbolic power of _words_, and the signifiers that are attached to them.


 
I do grasp them, and I always choose them carefully. 

You might want to consider why I choose the words I do.  That's _consider._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

Phil is a troll and amusing to argue with because he doesn't really believe any of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> 25 pages of circle jerking, name calling, and bullying.
> 
> On both sides.
> 
> ...


Oh i thought you may have meant Jazzz's repeated enthusiastic endorsement of openly anti-semitic material from an openly anti-semitic mag produced by a mass anti-semitic movement in the 1930s. And i do not believe for a second that you have read this thread. Have you?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh i thought you may have meant Jazzz's repeated enthusiastic endorsement of openly anti-semitic material from an openly anti-semitic mag produced by a mass anti-semitic movement in the 1930s. And i do not believe for a second that you have read this thread. Have you?



I have, actually.  The tone from the outset was begging for a bun fight.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I have, actually. The tone from the outset was begging for a bun fight.


Then you are just simply talking bollocks i'm afraid. Look at the OP - it's a request for info about how to intelligently a persistent source of trouble in anti-capitalist approaches and there followed discussion on just that topic.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

so what? these people need more than a bun fight frankly.

i'm not having people thinking it's all right to stir up hatred because of a banking conspiracy that exists only in their heads. it's never more than three steps away.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I do grasp them, and I always choose them carefully.
> 
> You might want to consider why I choose the words I do. That's _consider._


 
Pray tell.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I have, actually. The tone from the outset was begging for a bun fight.


There wasn't even any hint of disagreement until page 5 which was what 10 months after the bun-fight begging OP. You _sure_ that you've read it?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Pray tell.


 
Because I thought you might want to consider it.


----------



## binka (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> 25 pages of circle jerking, name calling, and bullying.
> 
> On both sides.
> 
> ...


_stop bullying me with your facts!_


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That's how the law of quantitative change becoming qualitative change works though isn't it.
> 
> At first, as the name implies, derivatives are merely "derived from" some allegedly more "real" underlying commodity.
> 
> ...


Derivatives are on par with insurance, in fact that's more or less how it started with options on agro-products back in the 17th century. I suppose insurance is a pernicious Jewish conspiracy too? But then again don't let facts get in the way of your tugging.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Derivatives are on par with insurance, in fact that's more or less how it started with options on agro-products back in the 18th century. I suppose insurance is a pernicious Jewish conspiracy too?


 
Seriously, why do you keep mentioning "Jewish" this and "Jew" that, Truxta?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously, why do you keep mentioning "Jewish" this and "Jew" that, Truxta?


Only following in your path, Master Debater.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Because I thought you might want to consider it.


 
I did consider it, and I came to the conclusion it was dodgy as fuck. If you were attempting to make some oh so clever comment on the nature of antisemitism, then you might want to make yourself a bit more clear. At the best of times, the internet is a poor platform for communicating subtleties as there is no vocal intonation, body language or background knowledge on the person writing. So just spit it out instead of expecting people to be able to read your mind.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Derivatives are on par with insurance, in fact that's more or less how it started with options on agro-products back in the 18th century.


 
"It" he says.

No, derivatives are not "on par with insurance," you tosser. Not unless you count buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house and then burning it down.  That is what a CDO does (look it up).


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> "It" he says.
> 
> No, derivatives are not "on par with insurance," you tosser. Not unless you count buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house and then burning it down.


So you admit to not having a clue about what derivatives are, where they came from and so on then. Glad that's sorted.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I did consider it, and I came to the conclusion it was dodgy as fuck. If you were attempting to make some oh so clever comment on the nature of antisemitism, then you might want to make yourself a bit more clear. At the best of times, the internet is a poor platform for communicating subtleties as there is no vocal intonation, body language or background knowledge on the person writing. So just spit it out instead of expecting people to be able to read your mind.


 
witches, symbols, usury, lesbians, arguments for the existence of god


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I did consider it, and I came to the conclusion it was dodgy as fuck.


 
That's right, you did, didn't you?

And this is my problem how?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And this is my problem how?


 
Because now everyone thinks you're a closet racist.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> So you admit to not having a clue about what derivatives are, where they came from and so on then. Glad that's sorted.


 
No, I know that you don't.  Look them up on Wiki and get back to us, like you did with Calvin and Confucius.  After all you came out of those disputes looking pretty good didn't you?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Because now everyone thinks you're a closet racist.


 
And I would care what you think because?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, I know that you don't. Look them up on Wiki and get back to us, like you did with Calvin and Confucius. After all you came out of those disputes looking pretty good didn't you?


Yeah I did, a lot better than you in fact.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Yeah I did, a lot better than you in fact.


 
OK, the insanity level is already a _leedle _bit too high for this time of the morning. I'm going for coffee.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> "It" he says.
> 
> No, derivatives are not "on par with insurance," you tosser. Not unless you count buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house and then burning it down. *That is what a CDO does (look it up)*.


 
I suggest you look up what a CDO is - it's a Collaterised Debt Obligation and it does nothing of the sort

The term you were looking for above is a CDS - a Credit Default Swap

I saw you make this same error previously on this thread while also confusing an option with a swap, which suggests to me you understand precious little about either of these two things.

I will happily explain some of the basics to you (you are clearly not capable of going beyond the basics) if you calm down and start again from the beginning

Idiot


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Actually, seems I was wrong about derivative trading starting in the 17th century, this chap argues that it goes all the way back to Mesopotamia http://www.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/94260/08_10_Weber.pdf


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Actually, seems I was wrong about derivative trading starting in the 17th century, this chap argues that it goes all the way back to Mesopotamia http://www.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/94260/08_10_Weber.pdf


 
Mesopotamia?
As in the Garden Of Eden?
As in the first place Satan crossed paths with humanity?

I _knew_ it!!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I would care what you think because?


 
I give up.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> OK, the insanity level is already a _leedle _bit too high for this time of the morning. I'm going for coffee.


 
You're banned from this thread phil, so you should have gone anyway.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> OK, the insanity level is already a _leedle _bit too high for this time of the morning. I'm going for coffee.


 
Coffee? Did you get any sleep at all? Bad combination, caffeine and sleep deprivation, you may end up talking gibberish. Even Thatcher needed four hours.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I give up.


 
I'm not entirely sure that I can convey in mere words the sheer _absoluteness _of my indifference to that piece of information.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not entirely sure that I can convey in mere words the sheer _absoluteness _of my indifference to that piece of information.


 
So indifferent that you keep on coming back and insisting you're indifferent.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> You're banned from this thread phil, so you should have gone anyway.


 
Sorry.

Can I appeal?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not entirely sure that I can convey in mere words the sheer _absoluteness _of my indifference to that piece of information.


 
Is it more or less absolute than the amount of indifference that would cause it to merit no reply?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

8ball said:


> Is it more or less absolute than the amount of indifference that would cause it to merit no reply?


 
Yes, yes, he got there before you.  Lively up yourself.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

So, how about you explain to us what derivatives are and are not, phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> So, how about you explain to us what derivatives are and are not, phil?


 
You're going to wake up Love Detective if you keep up this noise.  And then you'll be sorry.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

Ed: removed. Don't post up videos without explanation - especially ones that give away the RL ID of urbanites. Ta.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I would care what you think because?


 
Well the only people I'd expect to _not _care about that would be... well... closet racists.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well the only people I'd expect to _not _care about that would be... well... closet racists.


 
And I would care what you expect because?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You're going to wake up Love Detective if you keep up this noise. And then you'll be sorry.


I'm glad to see him back actually, he knows this stuff far better than you and I.

love detective how's the nipper and OH doing? Getting any sleep?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I would care what you expect because?


 
Because you quite obviously wish you _were _me. I'm younger, better looking, more popular, have a better sex life and everything. It's understandable prof, I get this all the time. I get why having your arse handed to you by non-academics on the internet would make you feel inadequate and, to be brutally honest, you are. But you're still a human being phil. Just because you can't be _me _that doesn't mean you can't be _someone._

I hope that helps my little runner bean.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And I would care what you expect because?


 
don't you think talking about shylock is a bit dodgy phil? aren't there other non-jewish usurers around? i know you're not racist so was surprised to see you referring to him.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> don't you think talking about shylock is a bit dodgy phil? aren't there other non-jewish usurers around? i know you're not racist so was surprised to see you referring to him.


 
It would be as dangerous to ignore or forget Shylock as it would to ignore or forget Hitler.

If I think someone is behaving like either one of them I'll say so.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because you quite obviously wish you _were _me. I'm younger, better looking, more popular, have a better sex life and everything.


 
I bet you're not younger.

The rest I'll give you. Especially the better sex life, I'll give _anyone _that. 

Except Pickman's Model, obviously.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> don't you think talking about shylock is a bit dodgy phil? aren't there other non-jewish usurers around? i know you're not racist so was surprised to see you referring to him.


 
It's one of those boring troll techniques for keeping people wound up.  You back off a bit, maybe ridicule things lightly, then bung in a dog whistle trope, back off a bit, rinse, repeat.

Done in a way to look a bit academic, but it's your basic Jeremy Beadle 'wind-ups by numbers' stuff.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'm glad to see him back actually, he knows this stuff far better than you and I.
> 
> love detective how's the nipper and OH doing? Getting any sleep?


 
they're both doing grand thanks, getting a bit more sleep now at nights, so just normal tired now compared to the full on sleep deprivation/comatose condition of the first couple of months

I'm assuming the Professor has me on ignore as he otherwise wouldn't have made the comment he did just then to you. nice to know I rile him that much that he needs to employ artificial means to avoid confronting the indignity of continually being proved wrong at everything he writes (mind you he's going to have to ignore half the board after this thread)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> It would be as dangerous to ignore or forget Shylock as it would to ignore or forget Hitler.
> 
> If I think someone is behaving like either one of them I'll say so.


 
shylock is a fictional character though and he's portrayed in a fairly (but not entirely) anti-semitic way. if hitler was five hundred years ago and fictionally made up for an anti-german play on the evils of dictators (and germans), and if calling somebody hitler was a common anti-german insult, you might have a point tbh.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Get out of here Blagsta you Nazi scum.


Bang out of order Phil, and completely uncalled for.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

love detective said:


> they're both doing grand thanks, getting a bit more sleep now at nights, so just normal tired now compared to the full on sleep deprivation/comatose condition of the first couple of months
> 
> I'm assuming the Professor has me on ignore as he otherwise wouldn't have made the comment he did just then to you. nice to know I rile him that much that he needs to employ artificial means to avoid confronting the indignity of continually being proved wrong at everything he writes (mind you he's going to have to ignore half the board after this thread)


 
glad to hear you're all doing OK.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

love detective said:


> they're both doing grand thanks, getting a bit more sleep now at nights, so just normal tired now compared to the full on sleep deprivation/comatose condition of the first couple of months
> 
> I'm assuming the Professor has me on ignore as he otherwise wouldn't have made the comment he did just then to you. nice to know I rile him that much that he needs to employ artificial means to avoid confronting the indignity of continually being proved wrong at everything he writes (mind you he's going to have to ignore half the board after this thread)


I'm guessing he doesn't have you on ignore, he just knows you'll fuck him over so skips replying to you.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> shylock is a fictional character though and he's portrayed in a fairly (but not entirely) anti-semitic way. if hitler was five hundred years ago and fictional, and if calling somebody hitler was a common anti-german insult, you might have a point tbh.


 
Come up with a better term of abuse for "usurer" and I'll use it.

"Penny-father" doesn't pack quite the same punch.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Come up with a better term of abuse for "usurer" and I'll use it.
> 
> "Penny-father" doesn't pack quite the same punch.


 
loan shark?


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> glad to hear you're all doing OK.


 
thanks


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I bet you're not younger.
> 
> The rest I'll give you. Especially the better sex life, I'll give _anyone _that.
> 
> Except Pickman's Model, obviously.


 
When were you born? There's others on here who can confirm my age so I'll let you go first.

You really do wish you were me though don't you prof?

note: I get that this is a pointless derail that adds nothing to the thread but it was already ruined by a conspiracist fanatic coming on and evangelising 10 months late.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Bang out of order Phil, and completely uncalled for.


 
I don't like it either, but he started it.  I gave him loads of chances to withdraw or qualify what he'd said.  When he does, I'll do the same.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> When were you born? There's others on here who can confirm my age so I'll let you go first.
> 
> You really do wish you were me though don't you prof?
> 
> note: I get that this is a pointless derail that adds nothing to the thread but it was already ruined by a conspiracist fanatic coming on and evangelising 10 months late.


He wished he was me for a while as well SN - in fact I think he wishes he was anyone other than himself

you wouldn't blame him for that would you


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

love detective said:


> He wished he was me for a while as well SN - in fact I think he wishes he was anyone other than himself
> 
> you wouldn't blame him for that would you


It's still a bit strange for a bloke who clearly doesn't love himself to make himself so unloveable, on purpose, all the time.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> loan shark?


 
Suggests Tony Soprano not Morgan Stanley.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I don't like it either, but he started it. I gave him loads of chances to withdraw or qualify what he'd said. When he does, I'll do the same.


How fucking old are you? he started it? for fucks sake. If you call anyone a nazi again I will report your posts.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> When were you born? There's others on here who can confirm my age so I'll let you go first.


 
We are gentlemen here are we not?  It was your challenge so you go first.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> How fucking old are you? he started it?


 
Well I do see your point yes.



equationgirl said:


> If you call anyone a nazi again I will report your posts.


 
Will you do the same next time someone does it to me?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

i don't think anyone has called you one. ever.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I do see your point yes.
> 
> Will you do the same next time someone does it to me?


 
If it is a groundless accusation, yes.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i don't think anyone has called you one. ever.


 
Well you think wrong.

A wise man once said: "Treat me good, I'll treat you better; treat me bad, I'll treat you worse."

Actually it was a stupid man who said it. But it's not a stupid thing to say.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> If it is a groundless accusation, yes.


 
You think it might not be a groundless accusation?   You harbor some doubt over the question?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> We are gentlemen here are we not? It was your challenge so you go first.


 
OK, let's have an impartial person - I've just told frogwoman how my DOB - you tell her yours and she can say who's the oldest


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

love detective said:


> He wished he was me for a while as well SN - in fact I think he wishes he was anyone other than himself
> 
> you wouldn't blame him for that would you


 
Not at all mate - in his shoes who wouldn't?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You think it might not be a groundless accusation? You harbor some doubt over the question?


Oh for crying our loud Phil. As an example, if you posted a picture of yourself in full Nazi regalia and someone called you a Nazi, I'm unlikely to report them for that. But if someone called you a Nazi in the same way that you did to Blagsta twice on this thread, I would report it.

Now have the decency to apologise to Blagsta.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> OK, let's have an impartial person - I've just told frogwoman how my DOB - you tell her yours and she can say who's the oldest


 
Done.  I'm not sure I can stand the tension.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Oh for crying our loud Phil. As an example, if you posted a picture of yourself in full Nazi regalia and someone called you a Nazi, I'm unlikely to report them for that. But if someone called you a Nazi in the same way that you did to Blagsta twice on this thread, I would report it.
> 
> Now have the decency to apologise to Blagsta.


 
I'll apologize to him if he apologizes to me.  I'll ignore him if he ignores me.  I'll insult him if he insults me. 

That's fair enough innit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Done. I'm not sure I can stand the tension.


 
In your face old man! frogwoman can confirm 

14 whole years!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

i think you're older, sorry phil.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> It's still a bit strange for a bloke who clearly doesn't love himself to make himself so unloveable, on purpose, all the time.


Not really. It confirms his own perception. I thought you were a psychologist!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Not really. It confirms his own perception. I thought you were a psychologist!


 
Not the psych talk - that always means we're less than 2 pages from group-hugging!


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> In your face old man! frogwoman can confirm
> 
> 14 whole years!


 
So about this wonderful sex life you have. 

What are we talking about here?  Second base or goats and monkeys?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Not really. It confirms his own perception. I thought you were a psychologist!


Well, people who don't love themselves often try to change that IME. But maybe you're right. There's a reason I'm not in clinical after all.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

A potentially good thread completely ruined. Nice one, phil.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'll apologize to him if he apologizes to me. I'll ignore him if he ignores me. I'll insult him if he insults me.
> 
> That's fair enough innit.


Well that's funny because I didn't see where he called you a Nazi.

Given your age perhaps you should start acting it.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Well, people who don't love themselves often try to change that IME. But maybe you're right. There's a reason I'm not in clinical after all.


Ime, people who think they are fundamentally unloveable often act in a way that confirms it to themselves.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> A potentially good thread completely ruined. Nice one, phil.


 
Well you know, it really is all a matter of individual taste when it comes right down to it. You have your tastes; I have mine. Does it really make a difference in the great scheme of things though? As I grow older, I often think it doesn't.

We can talk all we want about "good" threads and "bad," we can sit here and speculate all night about "ruined potential" and the old "coulda woulda shoulda." Can't we? But at the end of the evening, with the shades drawing in, perhaps we can agree that in at least one respect all reasonable people will be able to unite behind the most basic, shared, universal values and beliefs common to _all _humanity, throughout the world and in every age. Such for instance as our shared certainty that Pickman's Model possesses a penis less than two inches long. It's these transcendent faiths that keep us strong and--yes--united in spite of everything.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well you know, it really is all a matter of individual taste when it comes right down to it. You have your tastes; I have mine. Does it really make a difference in the great scheme of things though? As I grow older, I often think it doesn't.
> 
> We can talk all we want about "good" threads and "bad," we can sit here and speculate all night about "ruined potential" and the old "coulda woulda shoulda." Can't we? But at the end of the evening, with the shades drawing in, perhaps we can agree that in at least one respect all reasonable people will be able to unite behind the most basic, shared, universal values and beliefs common to _all _humanity, throughout the world and in every age. Such for instance as our shared certainty that Pickman's Model possesses a penis less than two inches long. It's these transcendent faiths that keep us strong and--yes--united in spite of everything.


 
Seriously, what the fuck is this drivel?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> There's a reason I'm not in clinical after all.


 
That pesky background check again?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Ime, people who think they are fundamentally unloveable often act in a way that confirms it to themselves.


You think we can get phil onto the couch and spill all?


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Seriously, what the fuck is this drivel?


 
that's the sound of an empty vessel desperately trying to back himself out of a corner he's got himself into

it's not a pretty thing to hear or see, but it's an all too common an occurrence when the Professor gets out his depth (i.e. in every thread he posts on other than the ones about wanking or whatever)


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Seriously, what the fuck is the drivel?


 
Well it's hard to explain really.  To you I fear it would be impossible, and thus foolish even to attempt.  But there are those in whom my words will, if I am not much mistaken, strike ringing tones of truth that they will bear with them in their hearts throughout life's journey.  Anybody who has ever seen Pickman's Model naked for example.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

50 quid to whoever gets me a picture of Professor and Pickmans in a heated embrace.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Well that's funny because I didn't see where he called you a Nazi.


 
Missed that bit did you?  Flew past you in all the excitement did it?

Never mind, here it is again:



Blagsta said:


> Dwyer outs himself on the side of anti semitism. Who'd have thunk it.


 
Now you have your chance to rebuke Blagsta as you rebuked me don't you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So about this wonderful sex life you have.
> 
> What are we talking about here? Second base or goats and monkeys?


 
Your mum.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Mar 27, 2013)

this is a thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> this is a thread.


 
Thread of the year so far, if I do say so myself.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Missed that bit did you? Flew past you in all the excitement did it?
> 
> Never mind, here it is again:
> 
> Now you have your chance to rebuke Blagsta as you rebuked me don't you?


He didn't called you a Nazi.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He didn't called you a Nazi.


I made a fairly accurate observation.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well it's hard to explain really. To you I fear it would be impossible, and thus foolish even to attempt. But there are those in whom my words will, if I am not much mistaken, strike ringing tones of truth that they will bear with them in their hearts throughout life's journey. Anybody who has ever seen Pickman's Model naked for example.


 
OK phil, I'm going to be genuine with you here. You have a small chance that your professional reputation might just be pulled back from the cavernous void it is presently tumbling towards. For your own sake, please just back away from the keyboard. Internet footprints are more or less impossible to erase. If it hasn't already, don't let yours come back on you.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> I made a fairly accurate observation.


 
See EG, this is how shit starts.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> OK phil, I'm going to be genuine with you here. You have a small chance that your professional reputation might just be pulled back from the cavernous void it is presently tumbling towards. For your own sake, please just back away from the keyboard. Internet footprints are more or less impossible to erase. If it hasn't already, don't let yours come back on you.


The man's a self-confessed troll, what reputation could he possible want to salvage?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> See EG, this is how shit starts.


 
Oh fuck off dwyer. You know you're in the wrong, calling people Nazis when all they've done is disagree with you.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> He didn't called you a Nazi.


 
I called him one though.

I might do it again in a minute.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Oh fuck off dwyer. You know you're in the wrong, calling people Nazis when all they've done is disagree with you.


 
No, you know you're in the wrong, and so does everyone else.

Blagsta calls me an anti-semite: I call him a Nazi. He's a Nazi.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well it's hard to explain really. To you I fear it would be impossible, and thus foolish even to attempt. But there are those in whom my words will, if I am not much mistaken, strike ringing tones of truth that they will bear with them in their hearts throughout life's journey. Anybody who has ever seen Pickman's Model naked for example.


 
Go to sleep man and have your wet dreams about bankers and Shylocks and other men's cocks and whatever. I was enjoying this thread with all it's tawdry asides and weirdly enough I thought you were quite smart for a bit but apparently you're not. So fuck off with yer poncery and shite. Calling people Nazis and obsessing about cocks and the bible stuff and the duplicity, that's the worse. Seriously, you're a fucking professor of some shit? Get a grip man. Shut up, go to sleep. Wanker.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> I was enjoying this thread with all it's tawdry asides and weirdly enough I thought you were quite smart for a bit but apparently you're not. So fuck off with yer poncery and shite.


 Giving him a nice vivid reaction like that is a reward, not a reason to fuck off. Just in case you're one of the few who's not worked it out!


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Giving him a nice vivid reaction like that is a reward, not a reason to fuck off. Just in case you're one of the few who's not worked it out!


 
I know.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> No, you know you're in the wrong, and so does everyone else.
> 
> Blasgta calls me an anti-semite: I call him a Nazi. He's a Nazi.


Well supporting antisemitic sources will have that affect.

And I've reported your post.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Well supporting antisemitic sources will have that affect.


 
Which is why I didn't do it.

Did I?



equationgirl said:


> And I've reported your post.


 
The one where I said Blagsta was a Nazi?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

he's not an anti-semite he just likes putting dog whistle stuff into his posts along with all his other obsessions to wind everyone up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Which is why I didn't do it.
> 
> Did I?
> 
> ...


What happened to you going to bed?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> he's not an anti-semite he just likes putting dog whistle stuff into his posts along with all his other obsessions to wind everyone up.


 
Maybe so.  But he sails too close to the wind at times, and that's why I'm calling him on it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> he's not an anti-semite he just likes putting dog whistle stuff into his posts along with all his other obsessions to wind everyone up.


He's not an anti-semite, he's not much of anything. He's a man with much to be modest about.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> What happened to you going to bed?


 
I got up again.

Unlike you.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

Point #11 of the forum rules:




> *Monomaniacs.* 'Sheeple'-accusers, bigoted gun nuts, ranting xenophobes, cut'n'pasters, god-squadders, *disruptive 'comical' alter-egos*, conspiraloons, fruitloops, small minded bigots etc. are not welcome.


Please, just someone put us all out of our misery.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Maybe so. But he sails too close to the wind at times, and that's why I'm calling him on it.


 
I see. Now that's out of the way we can go back to discussing the topic at hand.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Point #11 of the forum rules:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, just someone put us all out of our misery.


At the very least that point should have had Jazzz booted out quite some time ago, and arguably Phil "Witches made us invent money and now they've invaded our brains" Dwyer.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Getting more than a bit sick of this. Too many threads now.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I see. Now that's out of the way we can go back to discussing the topic at hand.


 
Quite so.

How do you think he manages to pee?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

Ignored.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I see. Now that's out of the way we can go back to discussing the topic at hand.


 
Aside from critiques of some of the more crackpot stuff, I think one thing that is missing is a fairly unspun but solid and punchy interpretation of what actually happened - it makes it a bit easier to critique some of the crackpot stuff (some of which can look quite plausible at first) if you can give a better account of the evidence with something a bit more sane. 

Can be hard to make something 'punchy' without oversimplifying, I suppose, but to someone who has become invested in an idea
I think there are limits to what you can do by pointing out the source also links to very dodgy things in a couple of easy hops.  As a game, try getting to wacko stuff in as few hops as you can from wikipedia, the Beeb, NYT etc. - it's really easy.


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 27, 2013)

Brilliant this wank thread is just like global economics at work, fucking brilliant guys, brilliant.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Brilliant this wank thread is just like global economics at work, fucking brilliant guys, brilliant.


 
Cheers, I thought I was vaguely trying to meander topicwards...


----------



## savoloysam (Mar 27, 2013)

Sorry, as you were


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

savoloysam said:


> Brilliant this wank thread is just like global economics at work, fucking brilliant guys, brilliant.


In what way? 

Can you help as regards the OP?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Ignored.


this thread has greatly improved since dwyer's fuckwitted nonsense was excised from it.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can you help as regards the OP?


 
For Christ's sake, _someone _must be able to help.


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> For Christ's sake, _someone _must be able to help.


 I can provide temporary reliefe in the form of alcohol...


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

Come on, boffins!


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

Fucking hell, it's a Pantomime! Please Professor, go to sleep, go to sleep, gooo tooo sleeeeeep.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Fucking hell, it's a Pantomime! Please Professor, go to sleep, go to sleep, gooo tooo sleeeeeep.


he should almost be put to sleep.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

In regards to the original topic, it strikes me that there are two underlying issues that need to be addressed. The first is on whether or not money is 'neutral' (i.e. has no impact on the real economy), or whether it in fact plays a concrete role in enabling production to take place. It's said by some that a recession can be triggered by a government increasing interest rates at the wrong time, choking off the money supply, and so bursting a bubble; which of course implies that money does have a real impact. Of course that doesn't tell us anything about why a bubble would have emerged in the first place.

A second issue that follows on from this, is the question of what comes first in the causal chain; does an increase in the money supply permit production, or does growth in production permit an increase in the money supply? For me this is a moot point because it is clearly both. The causation is circular; there is no beginning or end (I'm sure a Marxist would call this a dialectical relationship or something). If a firm can't borrow money then it can't invest in a new line of production; and if new lines of production are not succeeding in circulating money, no new credit can be advanced by banks.

Those are just a few random thoughts though. I'm not yet up to par with these things to have any solid answers.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

Additionally, from this way of looking at things it appears that there are two types of crisis possible. One that originates in the financial sphere (such as the current one), and one that stems from a bottleneck in the real economy (i.e. the 1970s). Or maybe not; I don't know.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

In a way this _is _the crisis of the 70s, as it was never really resolved. At root the crisis of the 70s was about low profitability (increase in the organic composition of capital etc) and the crisis that would have been necessary to overcome this properly never happened - something on a similar scale to the great depression would have done it. Instead there was a political fix - corporation tax was cut, unions repressed, debt bubbles allowed to inflate - all of which served to inflate after tax profits to a level at which the economy could function (if the rate of profit is low nobody will invest - why would they? You get pockets of activity in more profitable sectors but equally low profit sectors either make no profit or make losses - nobody's gonna invest then).

But the underlying cause was never addressed and the crisis eventually manifested itself as a financial crisis. So in both cases it's a structural crisis of capitalism, not just a financial crisis. That's not to say that bad fiscal policy cannot cause a crisis on its own - I'm sure it could. Nor is it to say that 'bad' (for a given value of bad - in a way it wasn't bad as without it the economy would have collapsed years ago) fiscal policy wasn't a _proximate _cause of this crisis.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

This is Andrew Kliman's analysis, right? I've skimmed through his book and it seems more convincing than David Harvey's (which on the surface appears plausible; but then so do all narrative-type explanations. The empirical bent of Kliman is a bit more robust in that regard). One thing that interests me about the whole 'law of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline', is whether or not a type of 'controlled' destruction of capital by government could take place to restore profitability. From Kliman:



> Imagine [...] a business that can generate $3 million in profit annually. If the value of the capital invested in the business is $100 million, the owners' rate of profit is a mere 3 percent. Yet if, as a result of the destruction of capital value, new owners can acquire the business for only $10 million [...], their rate of profit – the return they receive on their investment – is a healthy 30 percent.


 
When he says 'destruction of capital', I understand him to mean the bankruptcy of the first capitalist, and the purchase of his assets at rock-bottom prices by the second. But what if debts were periodically written off (I'm thinking of something like Steve Keen's 'modern debt jubilee' idea). Would it be possible to reset the system in this manner, restore profitability, and so overcome the need to destroy capital in such a socially damaging way? Once again, just random thoughts.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. Everyone sane is doing that.





SpineyNorman said:


> The only ones not doing so are Dwyer the increasingly obvious and boring troll (he may have been good once but well...) and you.


Except we know that's not true, don't we?

Tony Pepperoni felt compelled to come out of lurking to point out that banks do indeed create money out of thin air. He gave us a pdf to look through. Let's have a sample:



> Thanks to the dominance of Adam Smith’s flawed analytical system, the widespread assumption remains that credit plays a secondary role in the real economy (where e.g. stocks and shares are exchanged and houses bought and sold). From there the orthodox would have us believe that banks and bankers are mere ‘intermediaries’ between borrowers and savers: that savings are needed for investment; and loans are made from deposits.
> 
> Economists, sociologists, central bankers, commercial bankers, presidents and politicians have known since before the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 that the very opposite is true.
> 
> ...


 
From: The power to create money out of thin air - Ann Pettifor

What this means dear SpineyNorman is that banks - as the title of the pdf suggests! - create money out of thin air. It is done when they give out loans. That is how our money is created. It is that ridiculously simple.

May I point out that you clicked 'like' on Tony Pepperoni's post, so your position seems quite bizarre here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> This is Andrew Kliman's analysis, right? I've skimmed through his book and it seems more convincing than David Harvey's (which on the surface appears plausible; but then so do all narrative-type explanations. The empirical bent of Kliman is a bit more robust in that regard). One thing that interests me about the whole 'law of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline', is whether or not a type of 'controlled' destruction of capital by government could take place to restore profitability. From Kliman:
> 
> 
> 
> When he says 'destruction of capital', I understand him to mean the bankruptcy of the first capitalist, and the purchase of his assets at rock-bottom prices by the second. But what if debts were periodically written off (I'm thinking of something like Steve Keen's 'modern debt jubilee' idea). Would it be possible to reset the system in this manner, restore profitability, and so overcome the need to destroy capital in such a socially damaging way? Once again, just random thoughts.


 
Yeah - it's an analysis that was already floating about but Kliman presented a detailed empirical case for it, which we'd not had before (prior to reading Kliman I thought something very close, but not quite the same, as this - not really worth going into detail cos I was wrong). Destruction of capital in times of crisis works like that (and you also get physical destruction, as plant lies idle and siezes up, rusts etc) but physical destruction in war or natural disaster would serve a similar function.

I'm not sure what the answer to that second paragraph would be tbh - interesting question. I think it probably would but I'd have to have a long think about it and probably have a flick through the relevant chapters of _Capital _before I could make anything better than an educated guess. If he gets the time I'd be interested to hear what love detective reckons.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Except we know that's not true, don't we?
> 
> Tony Pepperoni felt compelled to come out of lurking to point out that banks do indeed create money out of thin air. He gave us a pdf to look through. Let's have a sample:
> 
> ...


And why exactly do the jews do this?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Except we know that's not true, don't we?
> 
> Tony Pepperoni felt compelled to come out of lurking to point out that banks do indeed create money out of thin air. He gave us a pdf to look through. Let's have a sample:
> 
> ...


 
Jazzz, please fuck off - the grownups are trying to talk now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not sure what the answer to that second paragraph would be tbh - interesting question. I think it probably would but I'd have to have a long think about it and probably have a flick through the relevant chapters of _Capital _before I could make anything better than an educated guess. If he gets the time I'd be interested to hear what love detective reckons.


 
The answer is no because it requires competitive destruction not destruction by decree - which even to attempt would require the overcoming of competition and thus one of the driving forces of capital accumulation (not to mention its encouragement of reckless consequence free investment, which would then require some sort of centralised allocation and scrutiny/control/overseee).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

What's wrong with that, though?

And it's not quite 'out of thin air'. First, they need to find someone willing to take on the debt - the money supply expanding in response to demand for money. Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation, destroying the deposit the loan had created.

I don't see the need to go 'whooa, evil' about this process in and of itself. Carried out by, for instance, a system of mutual societies, it can in principle perform a valuable social function in which nobody is fooled or exploited at all.

ETA:

Where else do you think money could come from? On the other hand, the _value_ that is attached to that money comes from the transaction of real things that the money was created to represent in the first place. No use creating equal and opposite + and - on a balance sheet if that money hasn't circulated in the real economy to represent value. Those figures on the page have no value without it.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation


 
True. But then again, telling the usurer to eat his "obligation" on his cornflakes for breakfast fulfills it pretty effectively too.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jazzz, please fuck off - the grownups are trying to talk now.


No sorry SN, I would you to clarify:

1) Whether you now agree that banks create money out of thin air
2) if you do not, what is wrong with Ann Pettifor's description
3) Why you clicked 'like' on Tony Pepperoni's post / Ann Pettifor's pdf
4) If you clicked 'like' because you didn't really have a clue do you really claim to have a clue what you are talking about now?

thanks


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation


 
Well I suppose it does.  But then again, tearing the "obligation" into tiny little pieces and using it to decorate my Christmas tree seems a more attractive way of fulfilling it to me.  You?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Except we know that's not true, don't we?
> 
> Tony Pepperoni felt compelled to come out of lurking to point out that banks do indeed create money out of thin air. He gave us a pdf to look through. Let's have a sample:
> 
> ...



So why the bank bailout?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No sorry SN, I would you to clarify:
> 
> 1) Whether you now agree that banks create money out of thin air
> 2) if you do not, what is wrong with Ann Pettifor's description
> ...


 
I clicked 'like' because he actually offered information. I'm reading it now as it goes and although I'm going to wait until I've finished it to comment I really don't think it says what you think it says.

Why don't you go back to the Icke forums for a bit and talk about jewish fucking holograms or summat?


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation


 
That's certainly one way of looking at it.

For myself however, I find the idea of fashioning the "obligation" into a conical shape and forcing it up the usurer's drainpipe a more appropriate means of fulfilling it.

Am I wrong to do so, do you think?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well I suppose it does. But then again, tearing the "obligation" into tiny little pieces and using it to decorate my Christmas tree seems a more attractive way of fulfilling it to me. You?


Well yes, we keep those promises that it suits us to keep and break those that it suits us to break. And sometimes, a system of promises has been made that cannot all be kept. Personally, I'd like to see promises made to pensioners, the unemployed, children, etc kept first. All that money does in the end is represent a promise. But as I said, without others willing to be party to that promise, banks can't just create money on their own.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> So why the bank bailout?


 
Beat it Blagsta, you Nazi.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The answer is no because it requires competitive destruction not destruction by decree -which even to attempt would require the overcoming of competition and thus one of the sriving forces of capital accumulation (not to mention its encouragement of reckless consequence free investment).


 
Why would this require the overcoming of competition? In effect it would be a form of quantitative easing, except that the money goes direct to firms and consumers, with a legal requirement for them to pay off any debts. Any money left over would be available to spend, therefore injecting some demand into the economy. Firms that were previously finding their profit margins squeezed by the servicing costs on investments would see their margins restored.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's wrong with that, though?
> 
> And it's not quite 'out of thin air'. First, they need to find someone willing to take on the debt - the money supply expanding in response to demand for money. Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation, destroying the deposit the loan had created.
> 
> ...


 
It also isn't really 'created out of thin air' in the way Jazzz claims it is anyway. It's only created on paper - if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out - otherwise the very idea of a financial crisis makes no sense whatsoever - if these loans actually 'created' money in the way Jazzz claims they did there wouldn't _be _a black hole that required bailouts to fill (and even then not successfully).


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, we keep those promises that it suits us to keep and break those that it suits us to break. And sometimes, a system of promises has been made that cannot all be kept. Personally, I'd like to see promises made to pensioners, the unemployed, children, etc kept first. All that money does in the end is represent a promise. But as I said, without others willing to be party to that promise, banks can't just create money on their own.


 
The banks have never found it difficult to create "parties" to their "promises" when they really want to do so.  You make it sound like a voluntary contract between equals.  That's not what it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It also isn't really 'created out of thin air' in the way Jazzz claims it is anyway. It's only created on paper - if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out - otherwise the very idea of a financial crisis makes no sense whatsoever - if these loans actually 'created' money in the way Jazzz claims they did there wouldn't _be _a black hole that required bailouts to fill (and even then not successfully).


exactly.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It also isn't really 'created out of thin air' in the way Jazzz claims it is anyway. It's only created on paper - if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out - otherwise the very idea of a financial crisis makes no sense whatsoever - if these loans actually 'created' money in the way Jazzz claims they did there wouldn't _be _a black hole that required bailouts to fill (and even then not successfully).


 
Heh.

In what sense exactly do banks "have" money "in" current accounts?

Do you mean physically?  Or what?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why would this require the overcoming of competition? In effect it would be a form of quantitative easing, except that the money goes direct to firms and consumers, with a legal requirement for them to pay off any debts. Any money left over would be available to spend, therefore injecting some demand into the economy. Firms that were previously finding their profit margins squeezed by the servicing costs on investments would see their margins restored.


Because that is how capital works. The creative destruction of capital in order to re-stablish the conditions of accumulation, not a gentleman's agreement to all go back to an equal start point. And you're now not on about capital destruction - you're on about something else. And there are problems with this suggestion as to where the tax from the productive sectors of the economy is going to come from when they aren't even investing due to the low rate of profit. I think you need to seperate the different part of what you're suggesting out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> 50 quid to whoever gets me a picture of Professor and Pickmans in a heated embrace.


you're fairly new round here: so you'll excuse me when i point out that if everyone had taken the attitude to dwyer i've taken for a long, long time now - one of unremitting opposition - then perhaps urban would be a better place.

you've been too kind to the prof for the past five years. so if anyone's more likely to end up in a clinch with dwyer, out of the two of us it's you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It also isn't really 'created out of thin air' in the way Jazzz claims it is anyway. It's only created on paper - if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out - otherwise the very idea of a financial crisis makes no sense whatsoever - if these loans actually 'created' money in the way Jazzz claims they did there wouldn't _be _a black hole that required bailouts to fill (and even then not successfully).


Banks borrow short and lend long - that's their business. And that's where they can come unstuck. A promise has both an amount and a time duration. I borrow £10 for 10 years. But the bank generally finances that loan with an initial deposit of £10 for 1 year, then repays this and refinances at the end of the period. That's what fucked Northern Rock - confidence in their loans collapsed so they could no longer refinance their 'borrow short, lend long' business.

It is also disputed that the deposit comes first. Endogenous theorists claim that it doesn't - and that the system of overnight interbank lending provides cover for this - as long as the system is functioning, the 'loan-first' nature of the business can be obscured.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Heh.
> 
> In what sense exactly do banks "have" money "in" current accounts?
> 
> Do you mean physically? Or what?


 
Doesn't have to be physically, no. But without the deposits in there it cannot be lent out. The kind of 'creation' Jazzz is referring to cannot be done by anyone other than the central bank.

And I'm not getting into a stupid, irrelevant debate with you over banks having/not having deposits in hard cash - because it doesn't matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

I make that 8 o'clock. Who won the 'when will dwyer be banned today' sweep?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Banks borrow short and lend long - that's their business. And that's where they can come unstuck. A promise has both an amount and a time duration. I borrow £10 for 10 years. But the bank generally finances that loan with an initial deposit of £10 for 1 year, then repays this and refinances at the end of the period. That's what fucked Northern Rock - confidence in their loans collapsed so they could no longer refinance their 'borrow short, lend long' business.
> 
> It is also disputed that the deposit comes first. Endogenous theorists claim that it doesn't - and that the system of overnight interbank lending provides cover for this - as long as the system is functioning, the 'loan-first' nature of the business can be obscured.


 
Yes, not being an idiot I already knew that. But in order to make yourself look clever you're confusing things unnecessarily and offering Jazz and dwyer ammunition in the form of theories and concepts neither of them understands. Because even Keen and Minsky don't think money is created in that way either. Even according to the endogenous theory of money creation the currency still has to be created by the central bank, it's just that the need to do this is created by private banks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, not being an idiot I already knew that. But in order to make yourself look clever you're confusing things unnecessarily and offering Jazz and dwyer ammunition in the form of theories and concepts neither of them understands. Because even Keen and Minsky don't think money is created in that way either. Even according to the endogenous theory of money creation the currency still has to be created by the central bank, it's just that the need to do this is created by private banks.


No need for rudeness, is there? According to Keen, the base money is created by the central bank _after_ the loans have been made in order to prevent banks from breaking their rules on reserves. He illustrates this in quite a bit of detail.

According to this view, the conventional account of fractional reserve lending and the money multiplier is false.

If you're discussing a critique of loon theories, I think it's relevant to look at something that isn't a loon theory but that often seems to be misused or misunderstood as such.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I make that 8 o'clock. Who won the 'when will dwyer be banned today' sweep?


 
He's been banned?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's wrong with that, though?
> 
> And it's not quite 'out of thin air'. First, they need to find someone willing to take on the debt - the money supply expanding in response to demand for money. Once created, the money represents an obligation - and repaying the debt fulfils the obligation, destroying the deposit the loan had created.


Well from the OP:


> I've had quite a lot of people telling me lately about how banks "create money out of nothing", how the federal reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" and other such nonsense. Now I know this is a load of bollocks but I don't really know enough about the way modern banking works to debunk them and explain what's really going on.


 
Of course your description is accurate, but it really is 'creating money out of nothing'. There is no money that gets deducted from anyone else's account, or made unavailable to them, when a new loan is made. Perhaps with this established we can then get more on to the question of whether it is a good thing or not.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 27, 2013)

dwyer on a temp ban. This isn't the only thread he's chucking about the insults and he caused 80% of the current reported posts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, not being an idiot I already knew that. But in order to make yourself look clever you're confusing things unnecessarily and offering Jazz and dwyer ammunition in the form of theories and concepts neither of them understands. Because even Keen and Minsky don't think money is created in that way either. Even according to the endogenous theory of money creation the currency still has to be created by the central bank, it's just that the need to do this is created by private banks.


 
Actually, that was a bit unfair - this is a reasonable debate to have. But with the two trolls on the thread it's impossible to have it sensibly.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 27, 2013)

...and the reported posts reached a critical mass.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No need for rudeness, is there? According to Keen, the base money is created by the central bank _after_ the loans have been made in order to prevent banks from breaking their rules on reserves. He illustrates this in quite a bit of detail.
> 
> According to this view, the conventional account of fractional reserve lending and the money multiplier is false.
> 
> If you're discussing a critique of loon theories, I think it's relevant to look at something that isn't a loon theory but that often seems to be misused or misunderstood as such.


 
Yeah I agree - apologies. I don't agree with Keen but it is a serious theory. But as I said, we can't really have this discussion with Dwyer and Jazzz on the thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well from the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your description is accurate, but it really is 'creating money out of nothing'. There is no money that gets deducted from anyone else's account, or made unavailable to them, when a new loan is made. Perhaps with this established we can then get more on to the question of whether it is a good thing or not.


Yes, this is called circulation. In the same way that one £10 note can transact more than £10 worth of goods.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Of course your description is accurate, but it really is 'creating money out of nothing'. There is no money that gets deducted from anyone else's account, or made unavailable to them, when a new loan is made. Perhaps with this established we can then get more on to the question of whether it is a good thing or not.


 
It's essential for the proper functioning of the capitalist economy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> dwyer on a temp ban. This isn't the only thread he's chucking about the insults and he caused 80% of the current reported posts.


how long's a temp ban in this instance?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how long's a temp ban in this instance?


 
And how many temp bans are required before it becomes clear that someone is only here to disrupt and a permanent ban, or at least a ban that is only lifted when certain assurances are made, becomes appropriate?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're fairly new round here: so you'll excuse me when i point out that if everyone had taken the attitude to dwyer i've taken for a long, long time now - one of unremitting opposition - then perhaps urban would be a better place.
> 
> you've been too kind to the prof for the past five years. so if anyone's more likely to end up in a clinch with dwyer, out of the two of us it's you.


Gods that is a grim outlook.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Oh, he's banned? Jazzz too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And how many temp bans are required before it becomes clear that someone is only here to disrupt and a permanent ban, or at least a ban that is only lifted when certain assurances are made, becomes appropriate?


How many roads most a man walk down
Before you call him a man ?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand ?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea ?
Yes, how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free ?
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Yes, how many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky ?
Yes, how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry ?
Yes, how many bans will it take till dwyer knows
That he's been posting too long ?
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin' in the wind.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Oh, he's banned? Jazzz too?


Nope. Phil _called_ someone a nazi - jazz just _supported_ nazi stuff.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Oh, he's banned? Jazzz too?


 
First rule of ban club is 'do not talk about ban club'.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how long's a temp ban in this instance?


Till the 6th. It would have been a week but I've got a headache. It's never a good idea to piss me off when I'm not in a fluffy frame of mind and the way he was generating reported posts (and not just in P&P which has a higher insult threshold) pissed me off.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope. Phil _called_ someone a nazi - jazz just _supported_ nazi stuff.


 
Come on, that's not fair - he might be spamming the boards with antisemitic propaganda but apparently he's a cracking pianist.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Come on, that's not fair - he might be spamming the boards with antisemitic propaganda but apparently he's a cracking pianist.


 
I can think of a saxophonist he might like to do a duet with...


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

He needed to get some sleep, bless his cotton socks. Off his tits with all that coffee and no sleep.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I can think of a saxophonist he might like to do a duet with...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah I agree - apologies. I don't agree with Keen but it is a serious theory. But as I said, we can't really have this discussion with Dwyer and Jazzz on the thread.


When I have the time and energy to do it, I might start a thread on this. Keen's theories make testable predictions, and I must say that I find them very convincing, but I'd have to go back and read it again to expand on that.

Relating this to what Jazzz is saying, I think he isn't far from a reasonable view - there's just a bit missing from his puzzle. The important thing to remember is that it's no use creating money if you can't attach real value to it - and the process that attaches value to money is one that is rooted in real things and real people: even in a property bubble, you need two parties to agree on the exchange value of a real thing for money to represent it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

There's no use bothering with it at all if he attaches the stuff that he does to it and argues that it must be attached. He is as far from a reasonable view as it's possible to be.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

What do you mean by "attach value to it"? What does money with no value attached to it look like?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When I have the time and energy to do it, I might start a thread on this. Keen's theories make testable predictions, and I must say that I find them very convincing, but I'd have to go back and read it again to expand on that.
> 
> Relating this to what Jazzz is saying, I think he isn't far from a reasonable view - there's just a bit missing from his puzzle. The important thing to remember is that it's no use creating money if you can't attach real value to it - and the process that attaches value to money is one that is rooted in real things and real people: even in a property bubble, you need two parties to agree on the exchange value of a real thing for money to represent it.


i think the difficulty isn't that there's something missing from jazzzz's view, but that he continually bases his views on objectionable, questionable evidence: he's an intelligent gent but he's always using barking nonsense as the foundation of his world-view.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What do you mean by "attach value to it"? What does money with no value attached to it look like?


the auld german hyperinflation money which now exists only as a curiosity.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When I have the time and energy to do it, I might start a thread on this. Keen's theories make testable predictions, and I must say that I find them very convincing, but I'd have to go back and read it again to expand on that.
> 
> Relating this to what Jazzz is saying, I think he isn't far from a reasonable view - there's just a bit missing from his puzzle. The important thing to remember is that it's no use creating money if you can't attach real value to it - and the process that attaches value to money is one that is rooted in real things and real people: even in a property bubble, you need two parties to agree on the exchange value of a real thing for money to represent it.


 
Value is a not process of agreement! It's one of power.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What do you mean by "attach value to it"? What does money with no value attached to it look like?


 
Blagsta. Fuck off you Nazi.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What do you mean by "attach value to it"? What does money with no value attached to it look like?


Nothing. It's just numbers. I'm not talking about anything more than circulation - so that money that Jazzz insists is 'created out of nothing' remains 'nothing' as long as it doesn't circulate. The person borrowing the money and the person depositing it back in the bank are not peripheral to the process - they are essential to it, they are the reason the process happens at all. I think this is the bit Jazzz is missing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Blagsta. Fuck off you Nazi.


oh dear. blagsta's as much a nazi - or even fascist - as you are.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because that is how capital works. The creative destruction of capital in order to re-stablish the conditions of accumulation, not a gentleman's agreement to all go back to an equal start point. And you're now not on about capital destruction - you're on about something else. And there are problems with this suggestion as to where the tax from the productive sectors of the economy is going to come from when they aren't even investing due to the low rate of profit. I think you need to seperate the different part of what you're suggesting out.


 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by some of this, so will do a more thorough read of Kliman when I get the chance. It's a shame Harvey doesn't seem to talk much about the LTRPF (at least not in the lectures I've watched so far), as he is very informative in other ways.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by some of this, so will do a more thorough read of Kliman when I get the chance. It's a shame Harvey doesn't seem to talk much about the LTRPF (at least not in the lectures I've watched so far), as he seems very informative in other ways.


He thinks its largely irrelevant today.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear. blagsta's as much a nazi - or even fascist - as you are.


 
Oh dear! Just a joke mate. dwyer etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Oh dear! Just a joke mate. dwyer etc


there's been a strange vibe on the boards today


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He thinks its largely irrelevant today.


 
Is there anywhere he explains why he believes this?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nothing. It's just numbers. I'm not talking about anything more than circulation - so that money that Jazzz insists is 'created out of nothing' remains 'nothing' as long as it doesn't circulate. The person borrowing the money and the person depositing it back in the bank are not peripheral to the process - they are essential to it, they are the reason the process happens at all. I think this is the bit Jazzz is missing.



I don't get it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is there anywhere he explains why he believes this?


THE ENIGMA OF CAPITAL AND THE CRISIS THIS TIME

Essentially he thinks the growth of finance capital =growth of fictitious capital-->neoliberalism--> attacks on wages and social wage-->lack of effective demand-->fall in profits.

And btw, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not the same as a fall in the rate of profit such as above - it's a tendency produced by a specific set of structural conditions, not just any conjunctural fall.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there's been a strange vibe on the boards today


Strange week if you ask me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Strange week if you ask me.


there have been portents...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> THE ENIGMA OF CAPITAL AND THE CRISIS THIS TIME
> 
> Essentially he thinks the growth of finance capital =growth of fictitious capital-->neoliberalism--> attacks on wages and social wage-->lack of effective demand-->fall in profits.
> 
> And btw, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not the same as a fall in the rate of profit such as above - it's a tendency produced by a specific set of structural conditions, not just any conjunctural fall.


 
Cheers. I found something in the book too.



> Marx himself felt that he had identified a critical means to explain the falling profitability that both Malthus and Ricardo had hypothesised. It was best explained, he argued, by the overall impact of labour-saving innovations on profit rates. Displacing labour, the source of making all new wealth, from production was bound to be counterproductive for profitability in the long run.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...it is hard to make Marx’s theory of the falling rate of profit work when innovation is as much capital or means of production saving (through, for example, more efficient energy use) as it is labour saving. Marx himself actually listed a variety of counteracting influences to a falling rate of profit, including rising rates of exploitation of labour, falling costs of means of production (capital-saving innovations), foreign trade that lowered resource costs, a massive increase in the industrial reserve army of labour that blunts the stimulus for the employment of new technologies, along with the constant devaluation of capital, the absorption of surplus capital in the production of physical infrastructures, as well as, finally, monopolisation and the opening up of new labour-intensive lines of production. This list is so long that it renders the neat explanation for a solid ‘law’ of falling profits as a mechanical response to labour-saving technological innovation more than a little moot. (Pg.94)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What do you mean by "attach value to it"? What does money with no value attached to it look like?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Cheers. I found something in the book too.


Massive historical debate over whether marx ever even formulated a law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as understood today or whether it was essentially a product of Henryk Grossman's work in the 20s (and then later by Paul Mattick Sr). And if he did, what he meant by it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Value is a not process of agreement! It's one of power.


 
This is a great video that explains that concept as well as I've seen anywhere:





In fact all his videos are great!


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> there have been portents...


Tell me more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Tell me more.


overheard recently:

*Old man on bus*
Threescore and ten I can remember well:
Within the volume of which time I have seen
Hours dreadful and things strange; but this sore night
Hath trifled former knowings.

*His son*
Ah, good father,
Thou seest, the heavens, as troubled with man's act,
Threaten his bloody stage: by the clock, 'tis day,
And yet dark night strangles the travelling lamp:
Is't night's predominance, or the day's shame,
That darkness does the face of earth entomb,
When living light should kiss it?

*Old man*
'Tis unnatural,
Even like the deed that's done. On Tuesday last,
A falcon, towering in her pride of place,
Was by a mousing owl hawk'd at and kill'd.

*Son*
And Duncan's horses--a thing most strange and certain--
Beauteous and swift, the minions of their race,
Turn'd wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out,
Contending 'gainst obedience, as they would make
War with mankind.

*Old Man*
'Tis said they eat each other.

*Son*
They did so, to the amazement of mine eyes
That look'd upon't. Here comes our stop.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2013)

two headed goat born unto a woman, a blood moon, strange froth upon my micturial output. Signs and wonders


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is a great video that explains that concept as well as I've seen anywhere:
> <SNIP>


Cheers for the reminder, keep meaning to check these out.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> THE ENIGMA OF CAPITAL AND THE CRISIS THIS TIME
> 
> Essentially he thinks the growth of finance capital =growth of fictitious capital-->neoliberalism--> attacks on wages and social wage-->lack of effective demand-->fall in profits.
> 
> And btw, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not the same as a fall in the rate of profit such as above - it's a tendency produced by a specific set of structural conditions, not just any conjunctural fall.


 
He also mentions, I think in _The Limits to Capital_, that he accepts the validity of the Okishio theorem, which is IMO heavily flawed. It basically says that since labour saving tech also brings down the cost of fixed capital the organic composition doesn't actually rise (along with a load of maths that I don't understand). But IMO (and this is Kliman's take too) the problem with this is that the fixed capital was bought at the price it was back when it was purchased, not at the price it would cost when the most recent commodities were produced - it requires crisis to bring it down to a lower price (I know I'm being a bit lazy here conflating price and value but I'm a bit knackered and don't have time to make sure I get my terms right - think the general gist ought to be clear enough though).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Yes, Kliman has a very good simple explanation of this (which sounds minor but is key behind the whole approach of that school). It may be in the last book or an article, will see if i can find it on the laptop.

edit: got it, will upload in a sec.

A Value-theoretic Critique of the Okishio Theorem
edit2: even simpler: The Okishio Theorem


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> This is me then is it? It's not Sihhi, it's me. Is it?
> 
> Actually, forget it. I'm not getting sucked in to Sihhiland and nor should you.
> 
> ...


 
If you want 'to forget it' (?) why bring my username in and mess around with a posting username?
I find the post absurd and demeaning to the given that you believe an archaic concept as banking. 

I've seen the film of the author of that book, it's irrelevant to conspiracist claims that a blob of "banks" control money willy-nilly creating it out of thin air and society. That's what the OP was after - a refutation of these conspiracist claims - in fact the refutation is all there in the first 3 pages of this thread. 

Someone brought in antisemitism into this thread by quoting vile anti-banking anti-international finance hero Henry *Ford*. *Ford*'s role in aiding the National Union of Social Justice via the Dearborn Independent is clear. The magazine and the radio broadcasts refer to its articles and claims, such as this one, same issue as the earlier article November 1938:






*Ford* himself was not going to fully display all his beliefs against Jews openly lest it provoke a boycott or counteraction, so instead he took the option of the _Dearborn Independent_ with deniability of output ('I don't write the articles'). In many ways Ford's _Dearborn Independent_ is the key link in turning  Coughlin from being just another zealous Catholic Canadian priest into a figure to aid populism - at first via Roosevelt in 1932, but then onto Huey Long  and then his associate G L K Smith. (Coughlin reads the Dearborn Independent from when he is in Detroit itself from 1923-1926 and then from 1926 onwards in its out of town suburb of Royal Oak at which point he begins his weekly radio show).
*Ford* wrote a book _Today and Tomorrow_ in 1926 ghosted by acolyte journalist Sam Crowther outlining his philosophy to supplement his autobiography, it drives home 'good industrial capitalism' and 'bad finance capitalism', simply stating that "certain hereditary groups" (no mention of who in particular) have been manipulating the world's gold and money supply for centuries and that this could lead to disaster in the future, or the weakening of America. (*Ford* he claimed he was right when the Wall Street Crash happened in 1929, and again when the Detroit banking panic of 1933 happened). Like his autobiography My Life and Work - which was a huge bestseller too - it is translated and distributed across the Western world - wittingly or unwittingly aiding, in small part, the intellectual climate for militant anti-finance capital populism in Europe.
The poster who introduced *Ford* was the one you immediately began to defend on this thread for some reason, no one forced you to start defending that poster or indeed to enter a thread explicitly for debunking - not promoting - conspiracism.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Thanks sihhi - been really enjoying reading your posts lately.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It also isn't really 'created out of thin air' in the way Jazzz claims it is anyway. It's only created on paper - if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out - otherwise the very idea of a financial crisis makes no sense whatsoever - if these loans actually 'created' money in the way Jazzz claims they did there wouldn't _be _a black hole that required bailouts to fill (and even then not successfully).


Well no, it's not true that it is only created on paper.

The loans that create the money are created on computers by keystrokes.

"if the banks don't have it in current accounts etc they can't pay it out". I'm struggling to see where you are coming from. Are you saying that the only way money is created is cash (paper) and that banks must have the cash to correspond with a new loan? If so, well it's correct that they must have a least as much cash as the new loan: but this isn't a correspondence. For every £1 in cash reserves, the bank can lend out £30 or so. This is fractional reserve banking.

It's precisely because banks are creating money which isn't backed up by 100% cash reserves that bailouts might be necessary as they will go down whenever confidence in their magic trick vanishes (and there is a 'run').

With full-reserve banking, there is the complete elimination of bank runs, and bailouts too - if a bank fails, it's just like any other business going bust. _You just let the bank go down_.

I know you don't yet understand any of this. That's really okay. It is better to admit that than pretend otherwise.


----------



## love detective (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He also mentions, I think in _The Limits to Capital_, that he accepts the validity of the Okishio theorem, which is IMO heavily flawed. It basically says that since labour saving tech also brings down the cost of fixed capital the organic composition doesn't actually rise (along with a load of maths that I don't understand). But IMO (and this is Kliman's take too) the problem with this is that the fixed capital was bought at the price it was back when it was purchased, not at the price it would cost when the most recent commodities were produced - it requires crisis to bring it down to a lower price (I know I'm being a bit lazy here conflating price and value but I'm a bit knackered and don't have time to make sure I get my terms right - think the general gist ought to be clear enough though).



The 'T' in TSSI is simple but incredibly important!

Kliman's first book 'Reclaiming Marx's Capital' deals with the theoretical side of all this stuff (and much more) in a very comprehensive and structured way while at the same time being a very easy read


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, we keep those promises that it suits us to keep and break those that it suits us to break. And sometimes, a system of promises has been made that cannot all be kept. Personally, I'd like to see promises made to pensioners, the unemployed, children, etc kept first. All that money does in the end is represent a promise. But as I said, without others willing to be party to that promise, banks can't just create money on their own.


Seeing as we are completely reliant on new bank-created money to come in to sustain our money supply, it's not going to be hard to find people wanting bank loans.

The absolutely truth of the matter is that it's actually the person taking out the loan that creates the money. The loan agreement is a promissory note


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

And thus is came to pass that Jazzz joined RMP3 on @SpineyNorman's ignore list.

And his 'other' List lol


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well no, it's not true that it is only created on paper.
> 
> The loans that create the money are created on computers by keystrokes.
> 
> ...


 
I see where you're going wrong. Banks don't lend based on reserves. They keep reserves based on what is deposited (usually 10%) and loan the rest. You've got it back to front.

This
http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/jfloyd/modules/monc.html
explains it, including the difference between base money and the money supply. We can see that loans based on FRB expand the money supply, but not base money. We can also see that banks loan on what is deposited, they cannot loan otherwise.

You also appear to think that only cash counts as money.  Cash is just one form of money.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

The C





Blagsta said:


> I see where you're going wrong. Banks don't lend based on reserves. They keep reserves based on what is deposited (usually 10%) and loan the rest. You've got it back to front.
> 
> This
> http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/jfloyd/modules/monc.html
> ...


 
Yes, key point - and this is simply the money-form of value.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, this is called circulation. In the same way that one £10 note can transact more than £10 worth of goods.


NO IT IS PRECISELY NOT 'CIRCULATION'.

In a thread a long time ago, love-detective suggested that what happens in banks is this:

Person A has £10 and lends it to B
B lends the £10 to C
C lends the £10 to D

etc, thus creating a chain of deposits and 'expansion of the credit supply'.

Which is really a misundestanding, because in this chain, no new money has been created. Why not? Because it's naturally 'full-reserve'. There is only £10 in circulation. Crucially, A cannot demand his £10 cash back from B at any time, _because while it is lent out to D, B doesn't have it_.

But with fractional-reserve take this scenario:

A lends £10 to Bank B
Bank B lends £10 to C

_The situation is that A still has £10 in his account and can withdraw it at any time._ In fact, the Bank has simply created £10 with the new loan to C. The bank can do with because only a few percentage of people at any time withdraw the cash in their accounts (demand deposits).

In fact it's more like:

A lends £1000 to Bank B
B lends £1000 to C
B lends £1000 to D
B lends £1000 to E
B lends £1000 to F

with the interest, it's a 'nice little earner'


----------



## 8ball (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I can think of a saxophonist he might like to do a duet with...


 
Mel Gibson plays sax?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> NO IT IS PRECISELY NOT 'CIRCULATION'.
> 
> In a thread a long time ago, love-detective suggested that what happens in banks is this:
> 
> ...


 
You're getting confused because you think that money is the only thing that counts. As butchers said above, money is just a form of _value_. It is the _value_ that circulates, but changing form in my circulation example.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

love detective said:


> The 'T' in TSSI is simple but incredibly important!
> 
> Kliman's first book 'Reclaiming Marx's Capital' deals with the theoretical side of all this stuff (and much more) in a very comprehensive and structured way while at the same time being a very easy read


 
I have this on pdf if anyone's interested I'll stick it on the net somewhere - been meaning to read it for a while but I've not got around to it yet.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 27, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> I see where you're going wrong. Banks don't lend based on reserves. They keep reserves based on what is deposited (usually 10%) and loan the rest. You've got it back to front.
> 
> This
> http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/jfloyd/modules/monc.html
> explains it, including the difference between base money and the money supply. We can see that loans based on FRB expand the money supply, but not base money. We can also see that banks loan on what is deposited, they cannot loan otherwise.


This is precisely the poor explanation in an economics textbook which is causing the ignorance. The key point to recognise, if you wish to model banks as loaning out deposits they receive, is that with fractional-reserve banking, the (demand) deposits ARE STILL THERE when they are subsequently loaned out! They can be transferred, they can be withdrawnin cash, they are there as ledger-entry money. The explanation points out that only a fraction of the deposit needs to be held back to make this work (because we are happy with 97% of our money existing as numbers in a bank account and not cash in our pockets, and just as digital money goes out from one bank, so it can be expected to come in from others).

Thus, each new loan creates new digital money in circulation. _This is where most of our money comes from._

If there was full-reserve banking, you wouldn't need to hold any portion of the deposit back. The deposit would be a time deposit: it could be withdrawn when the loan was scheduled to be repaid.

*When did you last go to a bank to withdraw your money to be told, "oh sorry, we can't do it, we loaned your money out"? Of course that doesn't happen!*



> You also appear to think that only cash counts as money. Cash is just one form of money.


I'm trying to explain that banks create the stuff!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I have this on pdf if anyone's interested I'll stick it on the net somewhere - been meaning to read it for a while but I've not got around to it yet.


Here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> 25 pages of circle jerking, name calling, and bullying.
> 
> On both sides.
> 
> ...


Fuck you. 

Calling out anti-semites as anti-semites isn't bullying, and if you think it is you can fuck right off you liberal/clueless mug.

These people are scum and are infecting a lot of the wider anti-cuts movement (see Occupy), they are a problem and need to exposed for what they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

In fact, here's a folder of his books and essays whilst i'm at it.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> This is precisely the poor explanation in an economics textbook which is causing the ignorance. The key point to recognise, if you wish to model banks as loaning out deposits they receive, is that with fractional-reserve banking, the deposits ARE STILL THERE when they are subsequently loaned out! They can be transferred, they can be withdrawnin cash, they are there as ledger-entry money. The explanation points out that only a fraction of the deposit needs to be held back to make this work (because we are happy with 97% of our money existing as numbers in a bank account and not cash in our pockets, and just as digital money goes out from one bank, so it can be expected to come in from others).


 
Yes, because this is because banks count on people not withdrawing all their money at the same time.



Jazzz said:


> Thus, each new loan creates new digital money in circulation. _This is where most of our money comes from._




You're right that circulation is key.  Without that circulation, no value is transacted. ( think this is what lbj was getting at).  The whole thing is moving, this is key - if it stops moving it doesn't mean anything, its only in this motion that any of it makes sense.  This is what is hard to get your head round, we're used to thinking about things as static not dynamic.



Jazzz said:


> If there was full-reserve banking, you wouldn't need to hold any portion of the deposit back. The deposit would be a time deposit: it could be withdrawn when the loan was scheduled to be repaid.


 
I'm not sure how this would work with on demand accounts.



Jazzz said:


> I'm trying to explain that banks create the stuff!


 
Yes, they facilitate circulation.  M-C-M.  The change of value from money form to commodity form to money form.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Here's one of Dumenil and Levy


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> This is precisely the poor explanation in an economics textbook which is causing the ignorance. The key point to recognise, if you wish to model banks as loaning out deposits they receive, is that with fractional-reserve banking, the deposits ARE STILL THERE when they are subsequently loaned out! They can be transferred, they can be withdrawn, they are there as ledger-entry money. The explanation points out that a fraction of the deposit needs to be held back to make this work (because we are happy with 97% of our money existing as numbers in a bank account and not cash in our pockets, and just as digital money goes out from one bank, so it can be expected to come in from others).
> 
> Thus, each new loan creates new digital money in circulation. _This is where most of our money comes from._
> 
> ...


 
Un-ignored to reply to this ignorant bollocks. The money is still technically in the account, yes. Otherwise banks wouldn't be able to lend out deposits current account holders placed in them - which is one of the key functions of a bank. But it places into circulation the money that is showing in the account - it's not new money in that sense.

For example, you deposit £10 in the bank of Spiney. It's a new bank so yours is the only deposit I have - I don't have any other money. Blagsta asks me for a loan. At the point when I agree the loan 'new money' is created - but only in a in a very specific sense - and it's the use to mean something very specific and your lack of understanding of what that specific something is that's causing loons like you to say what you do. Because it exists only on a ledger - it's not real. Blagsta then withdraws the £10 I lent him. Now according to the ledger I still hold the £10 you deposited. But you try taking it out - you can't because I haven't actually got it - it only exists on the ledger. So to give it to you I have to borrow it from someone else.

This is why there was a financial crisis - for various reasons that I'm not going to go into because it would take too long to check the specifics, banks were unable to borrow the money to cover their liabilities. If they'd really been 'creating money out of thin air' this wouldn't be a problem - they'd just pay you the money they 'created' and everyone would be happy.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Ben Fine with others.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Un-ignored to reply to this ignorant bollocks. The money is still technically in the account, yes. Otherwise banks wouldn't be able to lend out deposits current account holders placed in them - which is one of the key functions of a bank. But it places into circulation the money that is showing in the account - it's not new money in that sense.
> 
> For example, you deposit £10 in the bank of Spiney. It's a new bank so yours is the only deposit I have - I don't have any other money. Blagsta asks me for a loan. At the point when I agree the loan 'new money' is created - but only in a in a very specific sense - and it's the use to mean something very specific and your lack of understanding of what that specific something is that's causing loons like you to say what you do. Because it exists only on a ledger - it's not real. Blagsta then withdraws the £10 I lent him. Now according to the ledger I still hold the £10 you deposited. But you try taking it out - you can't because I haven't actually got it - it only exists on the ledger. So to give it to you I have to borrow it from someone else.
> 
> This is why there was a financial crisis - for various reasons that I'm not going to go into because it would take too long to check the specifics, banks were unable to borrow the money to cover their liabilities. If they'd really been 'creating money out of thin air' this wouldn't be a problem - they'd just pay you the money they 'created' and everyone would be happy.


 
That's an excellent explanation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

If the banks were creating money at a rate of knots as jazzz and the ill-starred prof aver then presumably inflation would be running at a rather higher rate than it is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck you.
> 
> Calling out anti-semites as anti-semites isn't bullying, and if you think it is you can fuck right off you liberal/clueless mug.
> 
> These people are scum and are infecting a lot of the wider anti-cuts movement (see Occupy), they are a problem and need to exposed for what they are.


It's this sort of hard-hitting post we see all too rarely on urban.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Thanks sihhi - been really enjoying reading your posts lately.


 
*Ford*'s Dearborn Independent is closed down in 1928, and there are wildly conflicting stories about what happens to his personal wealth where it is invested. Keeping to the religious principles etc *Ford* does not like ostentation or luxury spending, so there is almost certainly a place where his private wealth is channeled before the formation of the _Ford Foundation. _There are few records of *Ford*'s decisions at the Dearborn Independent itself although he is often there at weekly editorial meetings - his word just outright accepted (Neil Baldwin's *Henry Ford and the Jews the Mass Production of Hate* is a key compiling source). The strong suspicion is that Ford gives assistance to FrCoughlin also in Detroit who is sort of campaigning back in 1926 on the idea of Protestant-Catholic unity (a KKK cross burning accompanies the opening of this new parish in a formerly all-Protestant suburb), defending prohibition, opposing gambling, very much on a scripture basis at this time.

There's a sort of breach in the middle when Roosevelt becomes a kind of Second Coming in 1932. At the time nearly everyone projects what they want to see onto him (not too dissimilar to aspects of the Obama crescendo in 2007-8). But when Roosevelt rescinds prohibition, doesn't form a Gold Standard etc, the radio talks return to praising Ford at the same time as praising Huey Long populist senator of Louisana. The NUSJ is still praising *Ford* in 1937. Although it is based in suburban Detroit, there is a not insignificant following in the South and the NUSJ tries to promote the Ford promise of harmony between labour and capital in the industrial sector, by picture articles such as the following extolling the virtues of a new Ford plant in otherwise peripheral Georgia in the Deep South - attacked by bankers (not capitalism naturally). Ford is again mythologised as a sensible engineer - the bedrock of the 'American way'. The call in the model factory villages is for a return to a more moral, religious way of life - a time when banking was local and not based around Wall Street, a time when all had jobs - maybe the 1880s. To facilitate this return Ford brings out a book of dance patterns authored by "Mr & Mrs Henry Ford" - they are based around white American traditional customs it is very popular - the unspoken opponent is ragtime and jazz.






(Note the bit about "the girls will be trained homemakers" - *Ford* is one of the most resistant to hire women workers as a result of religious as well as general social objections - and when he is finally forced to do so as a result of the second world war he does so on pay scales that are the most extreme of inequalities of all US vehicle producers - male workers receiving 85c an hour, women receiving under 50c for identical labour (provoking a male-majority-UAW-led strike, a collective agreement at Ford won in 1941 after a decade of struggle). Bizarrely, the power of Ford Co. propaganda has Ford as being a strong ally of women during the war because the Rosie the Riveter from the We Can Do It morale posters is exemplified in a real-life Ford female worker called Rose Will Monroe who appears in promo films for war bonds, which are shown before nearly every cinema screening of anything during the war. Once the war is over, most women are expelled from their Ford plant jobs and only in the 1970s does Ford in America begin hiring women workers on any scale.)

*Ford *often waxes lyrical about his early years as a true American - ie native born and farmer-born, in an attempt to make Ford the wholly American alternative to General Motors. General Motors is _buying up_ foreign car firms to shift production there (fears of outsourcing, giving American jobs to foreigners) in a bad way, when Ford does it, it does it well in the good way - it's contradictory/nonsensical but that was the line.
*Ford* is also opposed, from religious roots, to the idea of giving credit to consumers, regarding it as a form of usury encouraging moral depletion in the giver (expecting later reward, encouraging idleness now) and the receiver (not sound household budgeting, one step away from gambling to meet loans). GM's monthly and quarterly payments reach more buyers meaning GM overtakes Ford at some point in the mid-1920s in outright sales numbers, so eventually Ford does allow credit and hire-purchase arrangements in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Eventually, Ford, even forms partnerships with belligerent nations in 1939 even though he claims he is opposed to war and is a pacifist on religious grounds, his private thoughts are fixated by the conspiracy idea of Jews in Wall Street and Congress encouraging US to go to war (a common strand in isolationist thought) - including the notorious use of prisoner-of-war labour in Nazi Germany beginining in 1940.

In other words virtually all of Ford's pronouncements are _backward religious nonsense_ or hypocritical statements to bolster his brand - everything he says about banks and banking should be carefully used as an example of the dangers of conspiracism over banking, intentionally or unintentionally, giving vile figures like Ford leeway and popularity.
*** *** ***
This part is slightly off-topic, the article in the previous post above goes on to describe _banking_ as the cause of recession in Germany, following basically the lines the Dearborn Independent took in the 1920s (which based around attacking the financiers for blocking American exports): "For fifteen years Germany was held in the Red Talons of Bolshevism. During that time its press was taken over, its commercial life was ruined. The currency of the nation was _debased_ to ridiculous extremes. ... German international financiers, through the iniquitous levies of the Treaty of Versailles, were profiting on the miseries of the German people. The simple historical fact is that for fifteen years Germany was throttled by a combination of international Jewish financiers and Russian Communism, inflicted by Jews upon the nation. This is not anti-Semitism. Neither is it an extenuation of the vengeance now being wreaked by the German people on Jews. It is merely cited as another example in world history of the natural reaction which a regenerated people will exercise upon those they regard as their former persecutors. The present unfortunate conduct of the German government towards the Jews could have been obviated by the leaders of Jewry after the close of the World War. These giants of Judaism throughout the world applauded the rise of Bolshevism in Russia. They gloried in the murder of the Romanoffs. They remained silent during the years in which 17* [seventeen] million Christians were slaughtered by actual co-operation they encouraged the rape of Germany. The reaction was inevitable. Regardless of what America might think of Chancellor Hitler, he succeeded in unifying the German people. With this rebirth of national spirit came the desire to even the score with the Jews.
...
The significant fact in connection with conditions in Germany at present is the frantic attempt to enlist American sympathy for the Jews in
the Reich. It is out of all proportion to any previous effort to soften the heart of America in favor of an "oppressed minority.""...
The world did not resound with lamentations when the British forces, spurred on by international bankers, tied the leaders of the Sepoy mutiny in India to the mouths of canons and blew them to bits. More recently, there was little weeping and wailing when thousands
of Christian priests and nuns were slaughtered in Communist Spain. There has been no loud and vociferous protest against the exiling of
bishops, priests and nuns from Communist Mexico. The conclusion is inevitable that the turning on of American spigots of sympathy depends upon whose ox is being gored." (Social Justice, 12 Dec 1938, explaining the events of Kristallnacht the month before -the two days leaving every single German synagogue destroyed/damaged in some form, over 7,000 Jewish-linked shops destroyed, dozens of Jewish cemeteries attacked, 200/300/? killed, around 30,000 Jewish men arrested for detention camps, ostensibly in connection with the assassination of the one German ambassador)

* the number 17 million deaths under the Soviet Union where is its source- I don't know.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

A general economics dossier, i put some good stuff  in here.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is why there was a financial crisis - for various reasons that I'm not going to go into because it would take too long to check the specifics, banks were unable to borrow the money to cover their liabilities. If they'd really been 'creating money out of thin air' this wouldn't be a problem - they'd just pay you the money they 'created' and everyone would be happy.


 
Yes, and the US financial crisis emerges at least, in part, as a result of liabilities that other forms of capital (ie industrial and agricultural) in seeking out profitability in changing conditions - which means higher land and housing prices at the same time as stagnating real wages - have imposed (via intermediaries).
In short, it's not the financial sector alone causing the crisis - that _looks_ like how it is (love detective's analogy of the sun moving round the earth while the earth stays still), if the financial sector hadn't lent out money the crisis would have come 20 years sooner, it's something to do with general decline in profitability, in rich people being able to stay sufficiently rich compared to those below them due to changes as a result of the whole system going forward. Not as eloquent, but that's my stab.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Most of the books in the historical materialism series.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A general economics dossier, i put some good stuff in here.


Cheers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

Fucking hell butchers - I'm never gonna make a dint in my reading list now!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

i've got gbs and gbs of this stuff. I think sihhi may have as well


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck you.
> 
> Calling out anti-semites as anti-semites isn't bullying, and if you think it is you can fuck right off you liberal/clueless mug.
> 
> These people are scum and are infecting a lot of the wider anti-cuts movement (see Occupy), they are a problem and need to exposed for what they are.


 
quite, if they want to cry about it they ought to think twice about defending and promoting ideas that led to millions of deaths and today help to obfuscate and derail any real opposition to capitalism, who help to discredit and repel opposition to that system, and turn attention instead to innocent people who have done nothing.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

Cheers for those. I think _business history_ is part of the missing link in 'radical analysis' and 'radical history' and wider analysis and understanding - how for every firm, each profit coincides with increasing pressure on workforces - its own or its competitors - and how in the state sector every jump in productivity leads to a squeeze elsewhere. 80% of radical history is the story of strikes, whereas strikes are 20% of the time.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Bullying my fucking arse. Another word that has lost all its meaning.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> also made men work for Dollar a day during the sepression because he was tighter than a gnats chuff


 
Ford paid one dollar a day only during the First World War, one central innovation was relatively high wages (five dollar day) in return for a highly structured, ruining-the-nerves-and-mind-workday free of union interference.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

Yep, and the right to use a moral based employment model.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Have downloaded that economy dossier, does it have some very basic stuff in it rfor almost complete beginners butchersapron? I know almost nothing about economics other than bits of pieces I've picked up on here and I really should.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Have downloaded that economy dossier, does it have some very basic stuff in it rfor almost complete beginners butchersapron? I know almost nothing about economics other than bits of pieces I've picked up on here and I really should.


Nope  Was just a collection of books i was sticking on a USB drive for a mate and thought i'd upload rather than a planned collection. Best in there is Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value which ain't beginner stuff but needs to be read. Might be interesting compile something along the lines you suggest though. (Not tonight)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, and the right to use a moral based employment model.


 
Enforced by a sadistic morality-guardian thug Harry Bennett, who hired unemployable ex-criminals as spies, security guards and supervisors from 1919 onwards leading to what the fairly mild Roosevelt union registration board called "a rule of terror and repression".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Yeah but he knew about the power of the banks though so he was all right. sihhi

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that jazzz knows all of this stuff he just doesn't care about it


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Enforced by a sadistic morality-guardian thug Harry Bennett, who hired unemployable ex-criminals as spies, security guards and supervisors from 1919 onwards leading to what the fairly mild Roosevelt union registration board called "a rule of terror and repression".


 

origins of the term stool pigeon?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope  Was just a collection of books i was sticking on a USB drive for a mate and thought i'd upload rather than a planned collection. Best in there is Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value which ain't beginner stuff but needs to be read. Might be interesting compile something along the lines you suggest though. (Not tonight)


 
would be good if you could or point me in the direction of something, i have a lot of trouble understanding economics texts with a lot of statistics so something simple (but not distorted/leaving stuff out if you know what i mean) would be good!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> origins of the term stool pigeon?


 
A stool pigeon was a company spy sent to report on meetings amongst the vast workforce at 80,000 at the main Detroit plant.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck you.
> 
> Calling out anti-semites as anti-semites isn't bullying, and if you think it is you can fuck right off you liberal/clueless mug.
> 
> These people are scum and are infecting a lot of the wider anti-cuts movement (see Occupy), they are a problem and need to exposed for what they are.


 
as i've said before, another possible effect of these people's influence (which has definitely happened, tho i don't knpow what the long term effects are) is the fact that by repelling and discrediting opposition to capitalism (and not just among jews) and associating it with out and out racism, something that isn't actually being challenged effectively, it will strengthen the hard right (or at least confirm some people leaning towards that way in their views) from the other direction - UKIP/EDL type zionist islamophobia about eurabia and so on, the idea that the left is as a whole anti-semitic, anti-israel and pro-muslim (ETA: and thus "traitors") and so on, all ideas that have been refuted a million times on here but it's a perception thats not helped by these people infecting these movements plus people like galloway, people taking fuckwitted attitudes to british troops etc.

ETA: you already see signs in this in fuckwitted "holocaust not allowed to be taught in british schools" emails blamed on muslims, etc. associating supporting the state of israel (and opposition to anti-semitism) with "patriotism"/hating muslims and that sort of stuff

two bunches of cunts feeding off each other basically.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> A stool pigeon was a company spy sent to report on meetings amongst the vast workforce at 80,000 at the main Detroit plant.


 

thought it was related. My american history is patchy hence I conflate pinkertons/stoolpidge/mining conflict/mcarthy/saccovanzetti into one big 'how the left got killed in americky'


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron I'm reading that "global minotaur". Enjoying it so far (i'm about 20 pages in) but is there anything i should read alongside it?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Un-ignored to reply to this ignorant bollocks. The money is still technically in the account, yes. Otherwise banks wouldn't be able to lend out deposits current account holders placed in them - which is one of the key functions of a bank. But it places into circulation the money that is showing in the account - it's not new money in that sense.


No, the money is not 'still technically in the account' - it is simply still in the account. It is ledger-entry money. That is the form of 97% of our money. Most of our trading is done with this money.



> For example, you deposit £10 in the bank of Spiney. It's a new bank so yours is the only deposit I have - I don't have any other money. Blagsta asks me for a loan. At the point when I agree the loan 'new money' is created - but only in a in a very specific sense - and it's the use to mean something very specific and your lack of understanding of what that specific something is that's causing loons like you to say what you do. Because it exists only on a ledger - it's not real. Blagsta then withdraws the £10 I lent him. Now according to the ledger I still hold the £10 you deposited. But you try taking it out - you can't because I haven't actually got it - it only exists on the ledger. So to give it to you I have to borrow it from someone else.


You are confusing full-reserve systems with fractional. In the case you describe, it's like you are attempting, as a normal person, to indulge in fractional reserve banking, but when the run happens (I come to claim back my ten pounds) your bank fails, because the money isn't there.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANK HAS A RUN.

But if you weren't a new bank, and you had a lot more customers, then I COULD WITHDRAW my loan which you had 'lent out' to someone else. Because you only need to hold a fraction of reserves to cover all the people who might withdraw their money - just as people transfer money out by wire, other will transfer in by wire - and they prefer you to hold the hard cash.

That is what enables the fractional reserve bank to lend out *thirty times* (not ten anymore) the money it has as 'cash reserves' (money in notes, or deposits with the Bank of England).

But as mentioned, this is also precisely why it is vulnerable to 'the run'. Because the cash isn't there.

_"Because it exists only on a ledger - it's not real." _As PhilDwyer has been at pains to point out, all the money is illusory in nature, however this 'not real' money constitutes 97% of the money in circulation. MOST OF OUR MONEY EXISTS AS LEDGER ENTRIES. That is what the money is. Only some 3% exists as cash.



> This is why there was a financial crisis - for various reasons that I'm not going to go into because it would take too long to check the specifics, banks were unable to borrow the money to cover their liabilities.


Yes, the banks had been exposed to a run which had taken hold. No-one would lend them more money because it would just get withdrawn in the run, and they wouldn't get it back.

What you have to understand is that at any one time, with a fractional-reserve bank, _the bank's liabilities on demand deposits far exceed the cash it has to pay them with_. They are always skirting this precipice.



> If they'd really been 'creating money out of thin air' this wouldn't be a problem - they'd just pay you the money they 'created' and everyone would be happy.


No they wouldn't, because confidence in the bank's currency - confidence that it could be transferred out, or withdrawn as cash - had evaporated. That's why everyone goes to withdraw their money. If you and a thousand friends have £10,000 deposited in CRASHINGBANK, and there's a run, loads of people are withdrawing their cash, do you really think CRASHINGBANK might stop the run by adding £10,000 to your statements? No, you would say, I am getting what money I can out while I have the chance, and they've gone insane.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

It's worth going over full-reserve banking again. With full-reserve banking, it can never be the case that the bank's liabilities on demand deposits exceed its cash reserves (if so, the bank is declared bust). Thus, it is not vulnerable to the run in the slightest. With FR banking, the analogy of a depositor's money being re-lent out DOES make sense: the deposit becomes a 'time' deposit, and the depositor not permitted to withdraw until the loan of it is repaid.

It's nonsense to say that money isn't 'circulating' with this. It's circulating by being lent in this fashion, and far more importantly, it circulates through normal commerce.

It would probably be illuminating if other people attempted to describe the difference between full-reserve and fractional-reserve banking. LBJ is the only other poster who I think has any grasp of it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> *<snip>*.


Cheers sihhi thats a really interesting post. (and thanks to SN/BA for the links)


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz, Northern Rock didn't need bailing out because of a run, the run was a consequence of its bailout and subsequent loss of confidence.

You're also still thinking that only cash is money despite having this explained to you.

How would full reserve banking operate a current account?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 28, 2013)

There's been some relevant stuff on this in the press in the last couple of days:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/131061

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/27/cyprus-crisis-why-need-banks?commentpage=2


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi your post 1044: I am not sure prohibition has a basis from all scripture. The wedding at cana?


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> It's worth going over full-reserve banking again. With full-reserve banking, it can never be the case that the bank's liabilities on demand deposits exceed its cash reserves (if so, the bank is declared bust). Thus, it is not vulnerable to the run in the slightest. With FR banking, the analogy of a depositor's money being re-lent out DOES make sense: the deposit becomes a 'time' deposit, and the depositor not permitted to withdraw until the loan of it is repaid.


 Why do you want to make the bankers stronger? If all money is an illusion why do you want to replace one illusion for another?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fucking hell butchers - I'm never gonna make a dint in my reading list now!


Shred it and start anew


Next


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> butchersapron I'm reading that "global minotaur". Enjoying it so far (i'm about 20 pages in) but is there anything i should read alongside it?


Yes, Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization since 1870, does what GM doesn't (not that good a book) and looks at capital and class dynamics form below, at how they change the form of capital and what it faces rather than _then the US decided to do this and then that_ etc

And if you struggle with any of this always have a look here


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A general economics dossier, i put some good stuff in here.


 
Nice. . . I see you've got one of my colleagues in there. Ta.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

Carrier?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Carrier?


 
You might say that - I couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization since 1870, does what GM doesn't (not that good a book) and looks at capital and class dynamics form below, at how they change the form of capital and what it faces rather than _then the US decided to do this and then that_ etc
> 
> And if you struggle with any of this always have a look here


 
that's amazing thanks. dont think i can read the whole thing (ben fine) on the elibrary site tho!


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

I don't have much time these days to get actively embroiled in these kind of threads, but even if I did they would just go the same way as all of these threads below, so if anyone's interested these all had slightly less derailed discussions about the same/similar/connected topics

Taking on the currency cranks

"Banks create money out of nothing" - Guardian

IMF's whacky far-out conspiraloon Government Issued Utility Money Plan

Austrian School: Crap/Not Crap?

Money and value

Why does capitalism need 3% growth?

Repossessions to rise when interest rates go up

Life Without Money

austerity and quantitive easing


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> I don't have much time these days to get actively embroiled in these kind of threads, but even if I did they would just go the same way as all of these threads below, so if anyone's interested these all had slightly less derailed discussions about the same/similar/connected topics


 
This is all very good, but do you have anything with lots of examples involving goats?


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

yes but i'd probably get banned if i posted the pictures of them


----------



## yield (Mar 28, 2013)

"Banks create money out of nothing" - Guardian


love detective said:


> and if they can create cash out of thin air why is it possible for bank's to even make losses in the first place
> 
> why do they have to go to the state for money when they can just conjure it up
> 
> ...


It doesn't get much clearer than that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here's one of Dumenil and Levy


 
Same link as Kliman one.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

Oops, try this one.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

yield said:


> "Banks create money out of nothing" - Guardian
> It doesn't get much clearer than that.


 
Jazzz, it might be useful if you address those points.  I'm no economist but some of them look sort of plausible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oops, try this one.


 
Danke!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

8ball said:


> Jazzz, it might be useful if you address those points. I'm no economist but some of them look sort of plausible.


I've addressed them several times in the threads mentioned. But if you want to pick one or two I'll do it. But the thing is, this stuff takes getting your head around, it is both disturbingly simple and fantastically weird at the same time.

love-detective doesn't understand money.  Rather than have a repeat of those threads, I'll just invite love-detective to say what he exactly thinks happens to the accounting entries when a bank makes a loan.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

He's answered that several times jazzz. The lack of understanding here is yours.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I've addressed them several times in the threads mentioned. But if you want to pick one or two I'll do it. But the thing is, this stuff takes getting your head around, it is both disturbingly simple and fantastically weird at the same time.
> 
> love-detective doesn't understand money. Rather than have a repeat of those threads, I'll just invite love-detective to say what he exactly thinks happens to the accounting entries when a bank makes a loan.


He's done that tens if not hundreds of times, and you've yet to even try to reply to his overly patient explanations. Fuck off for a bit and have a think eh.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I've addressed them several times in the threads mentioned. But if you want to pick one or two I'll do it. But the thing is, this stuff takes getting your head around, it is both disturbingly simple and fantastically weird at the same time.
> 
> love-detective doesn't understand money. Rather than have a repeat of those threads, I'll just invite love-detective to say what he exactly thinks happens to the accounting entries when a bank makes a loan.


 
Answer, one by one, the seven questions asked by love detective in yield's post above.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's done that tens if not hundreds of times, and you've yet to even try to reply to his overly patient explanations. Fuck off for a bit and have a think eh.


no he hasn't. link please


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> no he hasn't. link please


He's already posted a bunch of links on the previous page. All of those posts of his you can find there aren't necessarily aimed at you, but they all demolish your position. But you just jog on.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> no he hasn't. link please


He's just linked to lots of threads.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's already posted a bunch of links on the previous page. All of those posts of his you can find there aren't necessarily aimed at you, but they all demolish your position. But you just jog on.


no they don't. love-detective doesn't understand how money is created. I've spent countless posts answering him, and I've just realised that he never committed himself to the (very simple) task of explaining what happens to the accounting entries when a bank makes a loan. So I am inviting him to do that.

The invitation is there for anyone else who thinks that love-detective has explained it, so if you think he's explained it, go ahead.

It's very simple.

I'm all ears.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

He has done jazzz. Plenty of times. Spiney did it also on this very thread.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> He has done jazzz. Plenty of times. Spiney did it also on this very thread.


spiney continued my example of just normal people passing a tenner around.It had nothing to do with fractional-reserve banking. I responded to him in some detail.

what I am looking for is a description of the bank's assets and liabilities pre-and post loan and where the money is, the actual nuts and bolts. There's not much to it.


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> no they don't. love-detective doesn't understand how money is created. I've spent countless posts answering him, and I've just realised that he never committed himself to the (very simple) task of explaining what happens to the accounting entries when a bank makes a loan. So I am inviting him to do that.
> 
> The invitation is there for anyone else who thinks that love-detective has explained it, so if you think he's explained it, go ahead.
> 
> ...


 
Idiot and Fool

In the above linked posts I did exactly what you claim I've never done, in the first one as a direct response to you asking the very thing you've asked above, which you now deny has even happened - this is exactly why I don't bother wasting any more time on loons like you Jazz


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> Idiot and Fool
> 
> In the above linked posts I did exactly what you claim I've never done, in the first one as a direct response to you asking the very thing you've asked above, which you now deny has even happened - this is exactly why I don't bother wasting any more time on loons like you Jazz


 

I like how that thread itself has a post with half a dozen threads:




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> The bulk of this thread (from about post 8 onwards) focussed on it - including dispelling the myth (for the hundredth time) that fractional reserve lending is creating money out of thin air
> 
> Also this, this, this, this and this are also examples of where it's been discussed in depth before


 
Those who cite Henry Ford as wisdom on banking simply wish to _evade_ serious labour theory of value analysis - 'how come some have money in the first place?'.


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

yep it's a point i've made numerous times over the years - you never hear Jazz and his ilk say a thing against the exploitation of labour by capital or the social relations upon which capitalist society reproduces itself - not at all problematic for them funnily enough


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

you could do a lot worse than watching the series of videos spiney posted jazzz


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Those who cite Henry Ford as wisdom on banking simply wish to _evade_ serious labour theory of value analysis - 'how come some have money in the first place?'.


 
The money system certainly promotes the interests of those who have money in the first place, but yes, it is no good considering just banking in isolation - that doesn't address the underlying pattern of _ownership_, which needs to be tackled if meaningful change is to occur.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> Idiot and Fool
> 
> In the above linked posts I did exactly what you claim I've never done, in the first one as a direct response to you asking the very thing you've asked above, which you now deny has even happened - this is exactly why I don't bother wasting any more time on loons like you Jazz


 
Oh yes, this is post which I let pass.



> Once the borrower actually wants to use this money however (to buy something, pay someone etc..) - the bank has to be able to fund this and if they can't, regardless of the digits of a 100 in the deposit account of the potential borrower, the borrower can't get at the money (in reality though, the bank will have funded the loan position at the point of creating the internal accounting entry to ensure it's covered, however this funding of the loan is a completely different & separate thing to the internal accounting entry being discussed).


 
this (along with the rest of your explanation) is *waffle*. What we need is just the numbers. Assets, liabilities, cash. What do you mean, by way of accounting descriptions, by 'fund the loan position'?

for instance, are you saying that the bank needs cash reserves equal to the value of the loan being made, or that the bank needs cash reserves equal to all its demand liabilities?

*This is the crucial point and without an understanding of it you do not understand fractional reserve banking.*

Do you need help with it?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The money system certainly promotes the interests of those who have money in the first place, but yes, it is no good considering just banking in isolation - that doesn't address the underlying pattern of _ownership_, which needs to be tackled if meaningful change is to occur.


 
henry ford was the owner of the ford motor corporation ffs, he wasn't interested in ending the exploitation of labour by capital at all, quite the opposite in fact


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> henry ford was the owner of the ford motor corporation ffs, he wasn't interested in ending the exploitation of labour by capital at all, quite the opposite in fact


Yes, of course.


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Oh yes, this is post which I let pass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
If you can't understand the answer to the question you asked (or more correctly you are now making diversions after being caught out once again) then you probably shouldn't be having this discussion at all. Everything I talked about in that post is more than clear to anyone who understands basic accounting principles

I've just noticed though that you have disengenously only quoted one small paragraph of the post I referred you to and then lamented the fact that it doesn't refer to assets, liabilities or cash - the post in full is below and refers to all of these things, idiot:-




			
				me said:
			
		

> Had a quick skim through that lecture, and got to say I think it's horribly/poorly explained in terms of the bit that you refer to above. He seems to be conflating the internal accounting transactions that a bank will make in relation to the loan account being formally set up (but not drawn on) with the actual flow/movement of money that happens in reality when the loan is drawn upon (which is ironic as he's always going on about the importance of the flow over the static). These are two very different things, with only the later actually relating to the flow & movement of money between two parties.
> 
> What he is referring to above (and not sure why he puts that much focus on it as it's not really the relevant part) is the 'internal' accounting transaction that happens prior to any loan physically being paid out to the borrower. He's technically right in what he says, but this doesn't actually explain the flows that happen once the loan is actually drawn upon/used.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Oh yes, this is post which I let pass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I am repeating the post.

You've just C&P a load of waffle.

What I am looking for is balance-sheet type stuff for a fractional-reserve bank.

And the answer to this question:

"are you saying that the bank needs cash reserves equal to the value of the loan being made, or that the bank needs cash reserves equal to all its demand liabilities?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

The bank does need to fund its loan, though, Jazz. Whether through pre-existing deposits or through a swift accounting procedure that can take the deposit created by the loan and use that to fund it. Banks have to balance their books. As soon as they can't they're fucked. You would agree with that, no?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> spiney continued my example of just normal people passing a tenner around.It had nothing to do with fractional-reserve banking. I responded to him in some detail.
> 
> what I am looking for is a description of the bank's assets and liabilities pre-and post loan and where the money is, the actual nuts and bolts. There's not much to it.


 
You gave a reply which showed that you had not understood anything at all.  You don't seem to understand accounting, you don't understand what interbank lending is, you don't understand what happened to Northern Rock and you contradict yourself with your CRASHINGBANK nonsense.  If banks just create the money with accounting entries, then they wouldn't crash.


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I am repeating the post.
> 
> You've just C&P a load of waffle.
> 
> ...


you don't even know what a cash reserve is you loon

you've been caught out already just now claiming something that wasn't true, and now when presented with an exact response to your original question, you willfully ignore it all to avoid any constructive engagement and go off on some other weird tangent - if you think that is how you get debate/discussion then you're fucked in the head. You've been proven wrong and caught out time and time again on this narrow topic, and not to mention your even more odious anti-semitic shite, so don't think for a second you're getting much more of my time you weird loon


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Oh yes, this is post which I let pass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, you don't understand accounting.  Get your head round what assets and liabilities are.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I am repeating the post.
> 
> You've just C&P a load of waffle.
> 
> ...


 
Words fail me on how dense you're being.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

sorry can't be bothered going through all the posts but is jazz on the side of the "loon theories around banking"? thanks


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> sihhi your post 1044: I am not sure prohibition has a basis from all scripture. The wedding at cana?


 
There are many anti-drinking parts of the bible though - but, yes, prohibition is another step.
A google search gives the first letter to the Corinthians has all the stuff about the body as a temple of the Lord as being the basic foundation for it.

1 Corinthians 3:17 - If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which ye are.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? etc

The Old Testament is much harder - more of it too:

Isaiah 28:7-8 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions.
All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth.

I don't have a complete list of all Fr Coughlin's radio speeches/sermons but he was tapping into/reviving in the 1920s at least a vein of _Social Christianity - _a mostly presbyterian and evangelical movement at the turn of the century in the ? Progressive Era. 

The famous quote (also revealing the sexism certainly within parts of that movement) is Reverend Mark Matthews, head of Seattle's First Presbyterian Church declaring around 1902?: "The saloon is the most fiendish, corrupt, hell-soaked institution that ever crawled out of the slime of the eternal pit. ... It takes your sweet innocent daughter, robs her of her virtue, and transforms her into a brazen, wanton harlot. ... It is the open sore of this land."

There were similar voices in Michigan at the same time which Ford as a small town/village man lived through and was influenced by.

Coughlin's innovation was to combine all Christian denominations and with a wider economic populism.


----------



## JimW (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> ...
> 
> What I am looking for is balance-sheet type stuff for a fractional-reserve bank.
> 
> ...


 This just reads as "what I'm looking for is confirmation of my own misconceptions because I don't even understand the question I asked myself, let alone your several answers to it."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

The Northern Rock example is a good one in this instance, I think, Jazzz. It might take this discussion forward if you were to explain in a couple of sentences why NR went bust. Then everyone could move on.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There are many anti-drinking parts of the bible though - but, yes, prohibition is another step.


 
i love it when people start quoting the bible - there should be more of that!

Although drinking is not prohibited it is a sign of piety within the Torah for people to take the nazirite oath, which included non consumption of intoxicants. A fair few scholars on early christianity have put forward the claim that the early christians were all about that which is certainly backed up in various places of the new testment, including st paul taking such an oath under the instructions of james in the book of acts


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

At certain points in Jewish festivals we're actually commanded to drink (and get drunk) though but it's always in a ritualistic way.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what it is. The SPGB in their only conscious bit of activism in the last 50 years have decided to hold joint events with these loons. Lots of past discussion on here.


 
SPGB held a widely publicised meeting with British Union of Fascists as well.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At certain points in Jewish festivals we're actually commanded to drink (and get drunk) though but it's always in a ritualistic way.


 
Always felt judiaism has a much more healthy approach to the enjoyment of the things of this world that xtianity has.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> SPGB held a widely publicised meeting with British Union of Fascists as well.


 
what the fuck, why?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Always felt judiaism has a much more healthy approach to the enjoyment of the things of this world that xtianity has.


 
it _can_ do aye. Not always though.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> i love it when people start quoting the bible - there should be more of that!
> 
> Although drinking is not prohibited it is a sign of piety within the Torah for people to take the nazirite oath, which included non consumption of intoxicants. A fair few scholars on early christianity have put forward the claim that the early christians were all about that which is certainly backed up in various places of the new testment, including st paul taking such an oath under the instructions of james in the book of acts


 
Yes this is all accurate, the King James Version of Numbers has it as:

"Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the Lord; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long."


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The bank does need to fund its loan, though, Jazz. Whether through pre-existing deposits or through a swift accounting procedure that can take the deposit created by the loan and use that to fund it. Banks have to balance their books. As soon as they can't they're fucked. You would agree with that, no?


 
He wouldn't even agree with that though - as this bat shit post here from him demonstrates:-



			
				Jazzz on 26th July 2012 said:
			
		

> circulation is simply not necessary. To give a simple example, if someone deposits £1000 hard cash, the bank doesn't have to pass that £1000 around with other banks or itself making loans that eventually add to credit creation of maybe 30 times. It can simply make thirty loans of £1000 straight off the bat.


 
The above is enough in and off itself to convince anyone that Jazzz does not have a clue about how money, banking and accounting works. No one in their right mind who knew even a smidgen about these things could write what he wrote above.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> it _can_ do aye. Not always though.


 
heres me with my blanket terms for the complexities of massive religious currents 

i converted to islam for ten years, and much preferred the buzz of self righteousness that i had to any intoxicant i ever took prior to that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> He wouldn't even agree with that though - as this bat shit post here from him demonstrates:-


Well yes, that's plain wrong. The need for circulation seems to be the bit Jazzz is missing.

But I'll stick to his current posts. I've posted stuff on this topic in the past that I now acknowledge was wrong. That said, it is disappointing to see Jazzz still stuck on the full reserve idea. It appears to be something of a fixed idea.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> heres me with my blanket terms for the complexities of massive religious currents
> 
> i converted to islam for ten years, and much preferred the buzz of self righteousness that i had to any intoxicant i ever took prior to that


 
mate, i know all about that self righteous buzz


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well yes, that's plain wrong. The need for circulation seems to be the bit Jazzz is missing.


 
with all due respect he's missing plenty more than that

And note to Jazz, remember only earlier today you were claiming that:-



			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> LBJ is the only other poster who I think has any grasp of it


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> mate, i know all about that self righteous buzz


 
yeah... lifes just never been the same since ... sigh... lol


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what the fuck, why?


 
Goodness knows. To encourage them to move one step on from opposing finance capital so that they opposed industrial and land capital aswell?

It gets a bit mental at times, almost criticising the Blackshirts not so much for painting up slogans like PJ - Perish Judaea all over the place or street attacks on Jews, but for wearing the same colour:
"In one case he said that the Utopians were so keen about uniformity that they made all suits of clothes the same size. This is, of course, not Socialism, but capitalism gone mad, but talking of uniformity, what about the Fascist aim of compelling us all to wear shirts of the same colour?"


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> 2) This circulation is simply not necessary. To give a simple example, if someone deposits £1000 hard cash, the bank doesn't have to pass that £1000 around with other banks or itself making loans that eventually add to credit creation of maybe 30 times. It can simply make thirty loans of £1000 straight off the bat.


 
Is there a large enough  ?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> yeah... lifes just never been the same since ... sigh... lol


 
it's not been the same for me since either.

if there's one thing judaism has in it's defence though, it's the fact that it's a lot better in general at coping with the whole idea of people doubting god's existence and having an ambivalent relationship to him if he does exist, than a lot of other religious traditions. there are exceptions to this of course but most jews would understand perfectly well why somebody wouldn't believe in god at all and wouldn't try to force them into accepting their point of view.

of course, there are always exceptions to this, but when comparing it to something like evangelical christians, in some ways it's generally a bit more healthier. In others ..


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Goodness knows. To encourage them to move one step on from opposing finance capital so that they opposed industrial and land capital aswell?
> 
> It gets a bit mental at times, almost criticising the Blackshirts not so much for painting up slogans like PJ - Perish Judaea all over the place or street attacks on Jews, but for wearing the same colour:
> "In one case he said that the Utopians were so keen about uniformity that they made all suits of clothes the same size. This is, of course, not Socialism, but capitalism gone mad, but talking of uniformity, what about the Fascist aim of compelling us all to wear shirts of the same colour?"


 
For christ's sake


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Answer, one by one, the seven questions asked by love detective in yield's post above.


 
How you getting on with these by the way Jazzz?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> with all due respect he's missing plenty more than that


It's the main bit, I think. Circulation is what gives money its meaning. It's what money is _for_. Grasping that would lead to a lot of other things falling into place.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At certain points in Jewish festivals we're actually commanded to drink (and get drunk) though but it's always in a ritualistic way.


 
This sounds way better than mass. Teh jooz don't just control the world through money - they also get pissed at church!

How exactly would one go about signing up to this Judaism malarkey?


----------



## love detective (Mar 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's the main bit, I think. Circulation is what gives money its meaning. It's what money is _for_. Grasping that would lead to a lot of other things falling into place.


circulation is important, but I would disagree that this alone is what gives money its meaning

money isn't just something that sits around orphan like waiting to be given meaning by something

in capitalism for example, a synthesis of the production of commodities by alienated labour and the subsequent circulation of the product of that labour (including the production & circulation of wage labour itself) is the essence to which money is a manifestation off. This is why I always refer to people like Jazzz as 'money first' loons - i.e. they never look at the underlying essence that produces the phenomenal forms of money etc. they instead just look at the phenomenal form of something, money for example, as though it exists independently from the underlying social relations that condition and discipline it


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> SPGB held a widely publicised meeting with British Union of Fascists as well.


 
 Have you got any more info about this sihhi, links or anything like that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> circulation is important, but I would disagree that this alone is what gives money its meaning
> 
> money isn't just something that sits around orphan like waiting to be given meaning by something
> 
> in capitalism for example, a synthesis of the production of commodities by alienated labour and the subsequent circulation of the product of that labour (including the production & circulation of wage labour itself) is the essence to which money is a manifestation off


Ok, yes, circulation alone doesn't give it its meaning. It is _necessary_, though. I agree with your last paragraph, and it makes the crucial point that without the real things whose value it represents, it is worthless.

That's mostly what I meant. It is the link to real things and how that happens that appears to be missing from Jazzz's posts.

I also agree that many of the proposed 'solutions', including full reserve lending (which I still don't quite understand, tbh, despite reading Jazzz's link on it quite carefully), don't appear to solve anything at all. It is misidentifying the problem.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Have you got any more info about this sihhi, links or anything like that?


 
The link to the transcript:



sihhi said:


> It gets a bit mental at times, almost criticising the Blackshirts not so much for painting up slogans like PJ - Perish Judaea all over the place or street attacks on Jews, but for wearing the same colour:
> "In one case he said that the Utopians were so keen about uniformity that they made all suits of clothes the same size. This is, of course, not Socialism, but capitalism gone mad, but talking of uniformity, what about the Fascist aim of compelling us all to wear shirts of the same colour?"


 
It's basic SPGB principles - seek out debate with all opponents, stand in all elections, write 'World Socialism' in all ballot papers without SPGB candidates. See here:

"The SPGB has always argued that political ideas should not be suppressed but debated in the open. Workers must understand that the political ideas supporting the capitalist class whether from supporters of the British National Party Party, Greens and Liberal Democrats do not serve the interest of workers. That is why the SPGB debated Moseley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930’s and attempted to debate the National Front in the 1970’s. Those who wanted to prevent the working class from hearing Socialist arguments against The British Union of Fascists and the National Front were first the Communist Party and then the Socialist Workers Party. They were the real fascists."


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The link to the transcript:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough but the only people turning up to these meetings would probably either be ideologically convinced SPGB members or fash. They wouldn't be likely to convince anyone of their brand of utopian socialism who wasn't already convinced. Did many (any) BUF members or sympathisers join the SPGB as a result of this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At certain points in Jewish festivals we're actually commanded to drink (and get drunk) though but it's always in a ritualistic way.


 

interestingly* the little receptacles are twice the size of the communion ones you get at church. The church ones are just shy of a single measure shotglass, whereas the pesach ones we drank from the other night are double that, so two swigs worth rather than a swigsworth.

*to me


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Fair enough but the only people turning up to these meetings would probably either be ideologically convinced SPGB members or fash. They wouldn't be likely to convince anyone of their brand of utopian socialism who wasn't already convinced. Did many (any) BUF members or sympathisers join the SPGB as a result of this?


 
I've always wondered. If someone lives in Romford, I'd love to read a report of it in the 1935 Romford Times, they provided the hall and moderator and must have reported on it.

If anyone cares this is what butchers was on about - the SPGB debating with the anti-banking conspiracist Zeitgest Movement:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF6964B75F7B0F16C

Write up here:

On 22 July 38 people attended a meeting in Hammersmith, London, between the Socialist Party, as part of the World Socialist Movement, and the Zeitgeist Movement. There was agreement that the only framework within which the main problems facing humanity could be solved was one where the resources of the Earth had become the common heritage of all and so wealth could be produced and distributed without the need for money. We call it “world socialism”. ZM call it a “resource-based economy”.




> Francesco, for ZM, argued that it was due to the need to pay interest to banks on money they had created, the money to pay which could only be found by borrowing more from the banks; so we were debt-slaves. Although ZM did not advocate monetary reform to mitigate this, he personally was in favour of it as a transitional measure towards a money-free society. In the discussion Party members challenged the view that banks had the power to create money out of thin air.


 
Hmm...

Personally, I've had one shop worker tell me 'You should check out the Zeitgeist Movement' and one Zeitgeist intervention at a local public meeting about the NHS 'all the government needs to do is not pay the banks'. Cheers, guys.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> interestingly* the little receptacles are twice the size of the communion ones you get at church. The church ones are just shy of a single measure shotglass, whereas the pesach ones we drank from the other night are double that, so two swigs worth rather than a swigsworth.
> 
> *to me


 
the small metal cups or the glasses?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

And of course the cup of Elijah


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> you don't even know what a cash reserve is you loon
> 
> you've been caught out already just now claiming something that wasn't true, and now when presented with an exact response to your original question, you willfully ignore it all to avoid any constructive engagement and go off on some other weird tangent - if you think that is how you get debate/discussion then you're fucked in the head. You've been proven wrong and caught out time and time again on this narrow topic, and not to mention your even more odious anti-semitic shite, so don't think for a second you're getting much more of my time you weird loon


 
I knew you wouldn't answer. It says much that you resort to insults. I've spent many hours patiently answering and clarifying. If you actually understood this stuff, you'd be at pains too.

Let me repeat the question:

_"are you saying that the bank needs cash reserves equal to the value of the loan being made, or that the bank needs cash reserves equal to all its demand liabilities?"_

it's very simple.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the small metal cups or the glasses?


 
small metal receptcles


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

no


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The bank does need to fund its loan, though, Jazz. Whether through pre-existing deposits or through a swift accounting procedure that can take the deposit created by the loan and use that to fund it. Banks have to balance their books. As soon as they can't they're fucked. You would agree with that, no?


There is a CRUCIAL difference here between full-reserve banking (which is what love-detective understands) and fractional reserve, and this gets to the bottom of it.

What I am after is a simple description of the nuts and bolts of loans (and the corresponding money creation). Language like 'fund the loan position' explains nothing.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> small metal receptcles


seen. i thought they were pretty small myself! relative innit tho
the glasses/cups for the kiddush at the synagogue are like shotglasses lol. "Amen" and then you down it lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> There is a CRUCIAL difference here between full-reserve banking (which is what love-detective understands) and fractional reserve, and this gets to the bottom of it.


Ok, well let's get to the bottom of a full-reserve system.

Let's assume that the 'deposit-first' model is correct. I don't think it is correct, but let's assume it is - it is nominally how the system is currently supposed to work.

For a genuinely full-reserve system, a bank would only be able to take timed deposits and lend that amount out for that same time as loans. If someone wants a 25-year mortgage for £100k, someone else has to first buy a 25-year bond for £100k. (This begs the question as to where that first £100k came from, but let's ignore that.) If someone wants a loan for a month, someone else has to deposit for a month, etc. The only interest-bearing deposits will be timed deposits. In fact, instant-access accounts would have to incur charges.

This is negating one of banking's real, useful functions, which is to act as a pool. The aggregate behaviour of that pool can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy, allowing for timed loans to exceed the timed deposits. A full-reserve system would stifle long-term loans. This may have positive effects such as keeping house prices down, but it would also discourage long-term investment in productive things. The economy would grind to a halt.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, well let's get to the bottom of a full-reserve system.


The discussion of deeper macroeconomic variables is getting way ahead of things when posters do not understand what fractional reserve banking is.

I am inviting people to say what happens - the nuts and bolts of the accounting entries - when banks make loans. And the particular question to love-detective is what he means by the bank 'funding the loan position'. What is 'funding the loan position'? What is going on there?

Does he mean that the bank must have cash equal to the amount of the loan? Or must the bank have cash equal to the total of its demand liabilities (of which the 'loan' is one)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I
> 
> _"are you saying that the bank needs cash reserves equal to the value of the loan being made, or that the bank needs cash reserves equal to all its demand liabilities?"_


The bank doesn't need cash reserves equal to all its liabilities. But it does need to balance its books. It has to fund its assets with its liabilities. It cannot have assets greater than its liabilities minus its cash reserves. And that's where Northern Rock comes in. It could no longer balance the two. It could no longer secure liabilities (deposits or loans from other banks) to match its assets. In that sense, the loan does not exist in isolation - it is only one half of the equation, and the equation has to balance.

In theory, it could have no cash reserves at all, and just have equal assets and liabilities, but that could only work if there were 100 percent confidence that all the loans would be repaid. The cash reserves allow the bank to protect itself against a certain amount of default. The cash reserves also allow the bank scope to match longer-term assets with shorter-term liabilities. Both of these are calculated risks. They expose the bank to the danger of a run, and they also expose the bank to the danger that it will no longer be able to secure new short-term liabilities to cover its long-term assets, which is exactly what happened to Northern Rock.

If you look at the standard money-multiplier model, the following equation always holds:  loans + cash reserves = deposits.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A full-reserve system would stifle long-term loans. This may have positive effects such as keeping house prices down, but it would also discourage long-term investment in productive things. The economy would grind to a halt.


To answer your question though - the money in circulation would be kept at the same level, so the 'stifling of loans' simply equates to... LESS DEBT. I'm amazed that you think vast mortgage debt to the banks is a desirable thing! Mortgages, and by implication rents, are the very chains of our slavery. We are still going to live in the houses, but with lower rents, and lower house prices.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

Just throwing this out there - not spent too long thinking about it so I might be talking out of my arse, but with 'full reserves' what happens if someone takes out a loan and that money ends up, somehow, as a timed deposit (and it would happen, irrational as it sounds) and then gets loaned out again? That money would exist twice (according to Jazzz's lunacy) so you'd still have banks 'creating money out of nothing' - sort of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just throwing this out there - not spent too long thinking about it so I might be talking out of my arse, but with 'full reserves' what happens if someone takes out a loan and that money ends up, somehow, as a timed deposit (and it would happen, irrational as it sounds) and then gets loaned out again? That money would exist twice (according to Jazzz's lunacy) so you'd still have banks 'creating money out of nothing' - sort of.


Well assuming a 'loan-first' theory of money creation, a loan could only be made once a timed deposit equal to it had been agreed elsewhere. The loan would have to be arranged along with the deposit and a mechanism for getting that deposit back to the bank that made the loan via interbank lending. You're still creating money by creating the debt/deposit. That's what money is - the representation of a debt. And each taking out of a new loan will create new money, while any repaid loan destroys it, which is what we already have now. Except in this instance, the deposit would be out of circulation for the duration of the loan, so it isn't really creating new money. It's more like you giving me a tenner for a week, then me giving it back to you at the end of the week.. Actually it's not quite even that. It's the bank crediting me a tenner and debiting you a tenner for a week, then cancelling it out at the end. It's nothing - it doesn't circulate.

Assuming the money for the initial deposit already exists somehow, it still needs to match the loan in time, so the deposit is out of commission for the length of the loan, but the loan can create a new deposit. Thing is, lots of people are not going to want to tie up their money, so a great deal of the money won't be available for new loans. Assuming a strict enforcement of 'deposit-first' rules, only a very small amount of funds will be available for loans, and any funds used for loans will be taken out of circulation for the duration of the loan. So in theory, there would have to always be the same amount of money in circulation. Economic growth would lead to deflation, so there would need to be some kind of mechanism to prevent that - a periodic expansion of the money supply.

Banks wouldn't be in business in such a system, I wouldn't think. There's nothing in it for them and the total available credit would be near-zero.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well assuming a 'loan-first' theory of money creation, a loan could only be made once a timed deposit equal to it had been agreed elsewhere. The loan would have to be arranged along with the deposit and a mechanism for getting that deposit back to the bank that made the loan via interbank lending. You're still creating money by creating the debt/deposit. That's what money is - the representation of a debt. And each taking out of a new loan will create new money, while any repaid loan destroys it, which is what we already have now. Except in this instance, the deposit would be out of circulation for the duration of the loan, so it isn't really creating new money. It's more like you giving me a tenner for a week, then me giving it back to you at the end of the week.
> 
> Assuming the money for the initial deposit already exists somehow, it still needs to match the loan in time, so the deposit is out of commission for the length of the loan, but the loan can create a new deposit. Thing is, lots of people are not going to want to tie up their money, so a great deal of the money won't be available for new loans. Assuming a strict enforcement of 'deposit-first' rules, only a very small amount of funds will be available for loans, and any funds used for loans will be taken out of circulation for the duration of the loan. So in theory, there would have to always be the same amount of money in circulation. Economic growth would lead to deflation, so there would need to be some kind of mechanism to prevent that - a periodic expansion of the money supply.


 
Oh yeah - it wouldn't work in practice I don't think - far too inflexible. But I'm just trying to work out if, if we pretend Jazzz is right for a minute, it would actually stop 'money being created out of nothing'. I've probably not explained it that well though - the lateness of the hour and guinness are conspiring against me and stopping my brainz from working  - another fucking conspiracy


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz linked to an IMF working paper on this a while ago. I read most of it, and it wasn't actually proposing a truly full-deposit system. I can't remember exactly what it was proposing now (stuff that doesn't make sense stays in my head less well than stuff that makes sense), but it didn't seem sensible to me at all, and I simply fail to see what the problem is that it is supposed to be solving.

For instance, while I agree that lower house prices would be a good thing, they aren't such a good thing if you have to live in a cash economy with very restricted credit to get there. It would still be the same people at the top who will be able to afford to buy and everyone else renting from them. In fact, it would probably be far worse than it is now - the cost of a house isn't going to fall below the cost of the labour and materials to build it, so those without the cash up front to cover that will be excluded.

In and of itself, this solves nothing. You'd need a massive programme of social-housing building to provide social justice. Just like you do now. That's the thing to fight for, not full-reserve lending.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jazzz linked to an IMF working paper on this a while ago. I read most of it, and it wasn't actually proposing a truly full-deposit system. I can't remember exactly what it was proposing now (stuff that doesn't make sense stays in my head less well than stuff that makes sense), but it didn't seem sensible to me at all, and I simply fail to see what the problem is that it is supposed to be solving.


 
I think, for the non-loon full reserve people it's about making sure there isn't another 'black hole' - it's to stop financial crises. Of course it misses the point that finacial crises like this one aren't just about finance - they're an expression of a much deeper structural crisis.

But for loons like Jazzz it's to stop banks lending out the same deposit three times without it needing to circulate at all - it's to stop them 'creating money out of thin air' (if you want to understand this lunacy watch the beginning of Zeitgeist addendum  - that's where most of them get it from). They never explain why, if banks can perform this financial alchemy, there was a financial crisis - because of course if they could there wouldn't have been one.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

Wow, just took a peek at Jazzz's last offering, where he claims that it would do away with mortages and we'd somehow magically not need mortgages after that. He really is a complete and utter economic illiterate.

Woofbark eh donkey!


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wow, just took a peek at Jazzz's last offering, where he claims that it would do away with mortages and we'd somehow magically not need mortgages after that. He really is a complete and utter economic illiterate.
> 
> Woofbark eh donkey!


Woof indeed.

We, as the people, have already built the houses. The bankers didn't lift a single brick, or a single bag of cement. Why must we pay such fortunes to the bankers to live in them?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Woof indeed.
> 
> We, as the people, have already built the houses. The bankers didn't lift a single brick, or a single bag of cement. Why must we pay such fortunes to the bankers to live in them?


 
It's not only the bankers is it Jazzz? It's the mortgage companies, the estate agents, the water, gas and electricity companies, the food companies etc. Why are you only focusing on banks to the exclusion of every other part of the capitalist system?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> They never explain why, if banks can perform this financial alchemy, there was a financial crisis - because of course if they could there wouldn't have been one.


I am hoarse with explaining precisely that. No-one ever has any criticism of my explanation - they just ignore it, as you have done.

Why don't you actually read the Ann Pettifor link that you liked?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Woof indeed.
> 
> We, as the people, have already built the houses. The bankers didn't lift a single brick, or a single bag of cement. Why must we pay such fortunes to the bankers to live in them?


Well that's one area where things have become worse. Up to the 80s, most people took out mortgages with building societies. This was not intrinsically evil at all, yet the building societies matched long-term mortgages with short-term deposits and savings. They kept only fractional reserves. And in general they were more conservative in the amounts they would lend than banks were in the last 10 or so years - this fact in itself keeping prices down.

I would argue that building societies perform a valuable social role here within a system of private home ownership. If you're arguing for the abolition of private home ownership, that's another matter, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it can't happen within our current economic and social system. And while so much housing is private, most people are only ever going to be able to afford to buy by taking out a mortgage, whatever the banking system's rules.

Again, what you're arguing for isn't necessarily the abolition of mortgages, but the mutualisation of the financial institutions that provide them. So it's not so much the function of the banks as the ownership of the banks that is the problem. Shareholder capitalism, in other words - that's the root problem, the root cause of the injustice, the source of the banks' insatiable desire for profit.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's not only the bankers is it Jazzz? It's the mortgage companies, the estate agents, the water, gas and electricity companies, the food companies etc. Why are you only focusing on banks to the exclusion of every other part of the capitalist system?


Mortgage companies are banks. The money you are currently spending on rent/mortgages reflects no consumption of anything (aside for some small allowance for wear and tear on rental payments). That is where the great problem is. It is the face of the monster. It is your chain.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's not only the bankers is it Jazzz? It's the mortgage companies, the estate agents, the water, gas and electricity companies, the food companies etc. Why are you only focusing on banks to the exclusion of every other part of the capitalist system?


 
Because looking at this stuff seriously, constructing a serious analysis of capitalism, is fucking hard work, it takes dedication. And if you're looking at things objectively there's always a bit of doubt.

Why bother with that when you can watch a couple of antisemitic youtube videos that give you the twoof (TM) in an easy to digest 20 minute video, a twoof that's 100% certain and unshakeable and allows you to feel superior to the sheeple who are wasting their time reading books written by people who have dedicated their lives to studying the economy.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that's one area where things have become worse. Up to the 80s, most people took out mortgages with building societies. This was not intrinsically evil at all, yet the building societies matched long-term mortgages with short-term deposits and savings. They kept only fractional reserves. And in general they were more conservative in the amounts they would lend than banks were in the last 10 or so years - this fact in itself keeping prices down.
> 
> I would argue that building societies perform a valuable social role here within a system of private home ownership. If you're arguing for the abolition of private home ownership, that's another matter, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it can't happen within our current economic and social system. And while so much housing is private, most people are only ever going to be able to afford to buy by taking out a mortgage, whatever the banking system's rules.
> 
> Again, what you're arguing for isn't necessarily the abolition of mortgages, but the mutualisation of the financial institutions that provide them. So it's not so much the function of the banks as the ownership of the banks that is the problem.


But building societies were originally full-reserve institutions.

From Ralphonomics:



> In fact UK building societies used to work in a full reserve manner: that is they didn’t lend out money till they’d got the requisite funds in the kitty. Indeed some mutual building societies may still work in this full reserve manner, but whether they still do is beside the point. The real point is that building societies which work on full reserve principles had / have no trouble arranging for “funds of multiple savers indirectly to finance multiple borrowers”.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Mortgage companies are banks. The money you are currently spending on rent/mortgages reflects no consumption of anything (aside for some small allowance for wear and tear on rental payments). That is where the great problem is. It is your chain.


 
So every other commodity produced under capitalism and which we depend on money to buy is produced in a completely ethical and non exploitative way? It is just t_he banks_ that are the problem? What about people working in dangerous and filthy working conditions, or people whose wages hardly cover the cost of living, eating etc, resulting in stress, disease and early death? No all this stuff is just the banks' fault is it jazzz? And it's just mortgages and rents which are the problem, rather than their being part of a wider problem?


----------



## free spirit (Mar 29, 2013)

some serious deja vu going on here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Mortgage companies are banks. The money you are currently spending on rent/mortgages reflects no consumption of anything (aside for some small allowance for wear and tear on rental payments). That is where the great problem is. It is the face of the monster. It is your chain.


You're buying the right to be on that bit of land. You buy that right from the last person who had it, and pay a price that reflects how many others would also like it.

Again, I agree that this process stinks in many ways. But it's not caused by the banks - it's an inevitable consequence of a system of that allows people to buy and sell land.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So every other commodity produced under capitalism and which we depend on money to buy is produced in a completely ethical and non exploitative way? It is just t_he banks_ that are the problem? What about people working in dangerous and filthy working conditions, or people whose wages hardly cover the cost of living, eating etc, resulting in stress, disease and early death? No all this stuff is just the banks' fault is it jazzz? And it's just mortgages and rents which are the problem, rather than their being part of a wider problem?


_"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."_* Henry David Thoreau*
​


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> _"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."_* Henry David Thoreau*
> ​


 
the root is capitalism, not banks


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> But building societies were originally full-reserve institutions.


 
I don't quite get that. A society gathers together £100k in deposits and lends part of it out. That's fractional reserve. If it wants to keep a full reserve, it can't lend anything out.

Now I can well believe that they were strictly 'deposit-first' lenders. What that means is that they never have to rely on interbank lending to balance their books - they are fully financed by their members. But that's not the same as full-reserve.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't quite get that. A society gathers together £100k in deposits and lends part of it out. That's fractional reserve. If it wants to keep a full reserve, it can't lend anything out.


No, the deposits were time deposits. While they were lent out, the deposits couldn't be withdrawn.

So at any time, the building society had cash reserves to meet its demand liabilities. It was 'solvent'. This is full-reserve. It is what I think everyone thinks happens with banks at the moment.

I am still waiting for love-detective who of course has been strangely unable to explain whether banks need cash reserves to meet one loan, or all their demand liabilities, or something else (I'm giving clues here).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, the deposits were time deposits. While they were lent out, the deposits couldn't be withdrawn.


For the whole 25 years? I don't remember any building societies that operated like that. They'd have kids' savings accounts with maybe a week's notice, or others with a month, and probably others that were longer than that. But no, much of their money was only timed for a small fraction of the length of the mortgages.

It's still far lower risk than the likes of Northern Rock, no doubt, but it's not full-reserve lending - in order for the building society to remain financed, those timed deposits need to be replaced by new ones on an ongoing basis.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For the whole 25 years? I don't remember any building societies that operated like that. They'd have kids' savings accounts with maybe a week's notice, or others with a month, and probably others that were longer than that. But no, much of their money was only timed for a small fraction of the length of the mortgages.


This is going back much further than when we were children LBJ. Originally, building societies were clubs - each member would contribute. One person at a time would withdraw the kitty to buy their house. When everyone had their house, the club would dissolve. They grew from that. I don't know when fractional-reserve kicked in. A sad day, as clearly it was much easier to buy a house before. It didn't take 25 years! It shouldn't take 25 years!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

OK, but was it really easier to buy a house then? Sounds like a system in which you need to put up a sizeable proportion of the cost of a house as your deposit, and that it might still be a few years until you get to buy your house. How do you decide who gets the kitty first? Lots? Meantime everyone else is paying rent waiting their turn.

Such a system is also vulnerable to circumstances. If the borrower finds themselves in changed circumstances - or dies - before they can pay back the loan, then the others all lose. I guess they could evict them and either sell the house or substitute another member in their place, but that doesn't sound any better than what we have now, really.

Actually, that's potentially quite elegant. You have 10 people who all pay 10 pounds a month, say, for 10 months. A house costs 100 pounds. One person can buy straight away, the next can buy a month later, and so on until the last payment, when the last person moves in. Without that system, they would all have had to wait until the end of the 10 months to buy. With it, only one person has to wait that long. And given that you're saving rent, you could pool the renting costs across the period among everyone, so it would have taken any one individual longer than 10 months to save up.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 29, 2013)

Is the following a fair summary? Money isn't created out of thin air; it is pulled into existence by the process of capitalist production.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 29, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Is the following a fair summary? Money isn't created out of thin air; it is pulled into existence by the process of capitalist production.


Yes. Purchasing power is initially generated in the course of production in the form of wages and surplus value (the source of profit, rent and interest). As money circulates (the same coin or notes or whatever can be used more than once) the total amount of money in circulation does not have to equal the total amount of purchasing power generated. Banks merely help circulate purchasing power throughout the system. The government, either directly or through the central bank, can create extra nominal purchasing power through introducing more money into the system, but this won't increase the amount of real wealth in existence. It will just change the value of the unit in which it expressed, i.e depreciate it causing inflation.


----------



## love detective (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I knew you wouldn't answer. It says much that you resort to insults. I've spent many hours patiently answering and clarifying. If you actually understood this stuff, you'd be at pains too.
> 
> Let me repeat the question:
> 
> ...


 
I notice that this side show is conveniently allowing attention to be taken away from your continued inability to respond to cynicaleconomy and others requests for you to answer the seven questions asked in a previous post. These questions were asked long before you started this little side show, and you have since been pointed to various posts where I explain exactly what you are asking for. That you are unable to now take time to answer the seven questions on a topic you claim you have such a solid grasp of speaks volumes.

You also are unable to address the recent posts by LBJ in relation Northern Rock and also about banks having to fund loans that they make. Because you are either ignorant of the facts or even worse you are aware of them, but know they fly in the face of your loon theories, so therefore your only course of action is to ignore them completely. Nice way of getting to the truth that

And once again, you don't even know what a cash reserve is (if you do explain it now), your usage of the phrase cash reserve in the context of backing up a loan shows that you are conflating cash reserves with capital reserves (two completely different things), and confirms to me that you don't understand either of these things. As Jim pointed out earlier you don't actually understand your own questions, let alone the answers provided to them. The only thing I don't understand in all of this is why I keep replying to you.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2013)

I liked the example with promising to lend a mate a tenner <and mentally recording that we're actually a tenner down this week> as opposed to needing the tenner when he comes round - thanks for that LD, it's really useful as an explanatory aid. 

Jazzz - why _did_ Northern Rock get into trouble?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> interestingly* the little receptacles are twice the size of the communion ones you get at church. The church ones are just shy of a single measure shotglass, whereas the pesach ones we drank from the other night are double that, so two swigs worth rather than a swigsworth.
> 
> *to me


 
I used to know a Liberation Theology priest who'd been in a parish halfway up the Amazon. His church was a tin shed with intermittent electricity. One day it goes off just as he realises he's missed the communion wine. He sent one of the altar boys off to get a replacement. Five minutes later the lad is back with a bottle, which he couldn't identify in the dark. Only when he raised the chalice to his lips did he realise it was . . . whiskey.


----------



## yield (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No, the deposits were time deposits. While they were lent out, the deposits couldn't be withdrawn.
> 
> So at any time, the building society had cash reserves to meet its demand liabilities. It was 'solvent'. This is full-reserve. It is what I think everyone thinks happens with banks at the moment.
> 
> I am still waiting for love-detective who of course has been strangely unable to explain whether banks need cash reserves to meet one loan, or all their demand liabilities, or something else (I'm giving clues here).


Haven't you see the documentary "It's a wonderful life" starring Jimmy Stewart.


> . . . you're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money's not here. Your money's in Joe's house, right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and a hundred others. Why, you're lending them the money to build, and then, they're going to pay it back to you as best they can.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

love detective said:


> I notice that this side show is conveniently allowing attention to be taken away from your continued inability to respond to cynicaleconomy and others requests for you to answer the seven questions asked in a previous post. These questions were asked long before you started this little side show, and you have since been pointed to various posts where I explain exactly what you are asking for. That you are unable to now take time to answer the seven questions on a topic you claim you have such a solid grasp of speaks volumes.
> 
> You also are unable to address the recent posts by LBJ in relation Northern Rock and also about banks having to fund loans that they make. Because you are either ignorant of the facts or even worse you are aware of them, but know they fly in the face of your loon theories, so therefore your only course of action is to ignore them completely. Nice way of getting to the truth that
> 
> And once again, you don't even know what a cash reserve is (if you do explain it now), your usage of the phrase cash reserve in the context of backing up a loan shows that you are conflating cash reserves with capital reserves (two completely different things), and confirms to me that you don't understand either of these things. As Jim pointed out earlier you don't actually understand your own questions, let alone the answers provided to them. The only thing I don't understand in all of this is why I keep replying to you.


This is just evasive waffle again. Yet again you have failed to answer.

*What do you mean by "fund the loan position at the point of loan creation"?*

This is meaningless.

When I say 'cash reserve', I mean money held in cash (notes) or in account at the bank of england. If there is any confusion, you are free to specify what you mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes. Purchasing power is initially generated in the course of production in the form of wages and surplus value (the source of profit, rent and interest). As money circulates (the same coin or notes or whatever can be used more than once) the total amount of money in circulation does not have to equal the total amount of purchasing power generated. Banks merely help circulate purchasing power throughout the system. The government, either directly or through the central bank, can create extra nominal purchasing power through introducing more money into the system, but this won't increase the amount of real wealth in existence. It will just change the value of the unit in which it expressed, i.e depreciate it causing inflation.


I would add that demand for loans is also a major driver in the creation of new money. The madness of asset bubbles is that they create new debts/deposits without any change in the real value of the economy. Then when the bubble bursts, people strive to pay down their debts. It leaves an odd situation where there is 300 or 400 percent gdp debt in a country, meaning that there are lots of deposits of money, but the country staggers from one deflationary pressure to the next and there is a shortage of demand.

What appears to me to matter more than the quantity of money in an economy wrt inflation is whether or not that quantity is going up or going down. So Japan can have 400 percent gdp debt, yet still suffer from deflation - because private debt (household and business) is in fact edging down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> This is just evasive waffle again. Yet again you have failed to answer.
> 
> *What do you mean by "fund the loan position at the point of loan creation"?*
> 
> ...


You should answer the question on Northern Rock, though, Jazzz. How about you answer that, and then ask others to answer your questions. Because many people now have said that they do not believe that you understand why Northern Rock went bust. You have the chance to disabuse them of this belief.


----------



## love detective (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> This is just evasive waffle again. Yet again you have failed to answer.
> 
> *What do you mean by "fund the loan position at the point of loan creation"?*
> 
> ...


Christ your thick - funding a loan means exactly what it says

In the analogy I gave earlier about agreeing to lend a tenner to a mate - at the point the promise is made (and the relevant accounting entries passed) the bank has to either have funding in place, or ensure funding will be in place to ensure that the obligations created by the accounting entry can actually be met in reality. Of course you think that there is no difference between Accounting Entries and Reality. You think that Accounting Entries and Reality are one in the same (given rise to the bizarre implication that a dog hammering in random digits to a ledger system is creating reality), rather than accounting entries (in this instance) being a record of future obligations due to and from parties.

You said earlier that only LBJ grasps this topic as well as you do. Well he's said explicitly that you are wrong in regards to loans not having to be funded. I will take this as an admittance that you are wrong in regards to your bat shit notion that based on a deposit of £1,000 banks can then lend out £30,000 'straight off the bat' without the need for any circulation or funding of those loan position to take place.

To recap what was said:-




			
				littlebabyjesus earlier on this thread said:
			
		

> The bank does need to fund its loan, though, Jazz. Whether through pre-existing deposits or through a swift accounting procedure that can take the deposit created by the loan and use that to fund it. Banks have to balance their books. As soon as they can't they're fucked. You would agree with that, no?


 



			
				Jazzz on 26th July 2012 said:
			
		

> circulation is simply not necessary. To give a simple example, if someone deposits £1000 hard cash, the bank doesn't have to pass that £1000 around with other banks or itself making loans that eventually add to credit creation of maybe 30 times. It can simply make thirty loans of £1000 straight off the bat.


 



			
				littlebabyjesus in response to above said:
			
		

> Well yes, that's plain wrong. The need for circulation seems to be the bit Jazzz is missing.


 
So hopefully you've learned now about how banks have to, and how they actually do, fund the loans that they make

Now, i've answered plenty of your cretinous questions. If you want to take part in any further discussion, it is time for you to respond to the 7 questions asked by yield and cynicaleconomy, a request that was made long before you started off on this current distraction. You have already stated that you understand this so well and it is all so simple, so come on hotshot, respond to these 7 questions before we move on any further.


----------



## love detective (Mar 29, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You should answer the question on Northern Rock, though, Jazzz. How about you answer that, and then ask others to answer your questions. Because many people now have said that they do not believe that you understand why Northern Rock went bust. You have the chance to disabuse them of this belief.


 
The 7 questions asked by yield & cynicaleconomy were posed to Jazzz on this thread long before questions about Northern Rock, he's avoided answering them on previous threads, so it's only fair these are dealt with first before Jazzz bedazzles us with his strong grasp of what happeend at Northern Rock.

To make it easier for him - i'll link to the post again and list them below



> and if they can create cash out of thin air why is it possible for bank's to even make losses in the first place
> 
> why do they have to go to the state for money when they can just conjure it up
> 
> ...


 
Both yield, cynicaleconomy, myself and no doubt many others have been waiting sometime now for Jazz to deal with these questions - his silence on them has been deafening.

So Jazz, don't bother coming back with any more of your cretinous questions until you've attempted to answer the backlog of questions that have been posed to you. You seem to think that discussion can consist of a repeated avoidance by you of tricky questions while asking others stuff you don't even understand yourself. So enough's enough, until you learn some manners and respond to this and the Northern Rock questions you'll be getting no more responses from me.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

love detective said:


> Christ your thick - funding a loan means exactly what it says
> 
> In the analogy I gave earlier about agreeing to lend a tenner to a mate - at the point the promise is made (and the relevant accounting entries passed) the bank has to either have funding in place, or ensure funding will be in place to ensure that the obligations created by the accounting entry can actually be met in reality. Of course you think that there is no difference between Accounting Entries and Reality. You think that Accounting Entries and Reality are one in the same (given rise to the bizarre implication that a dog hammering in random digits to a ledger system is creating reality), rather than accounting entries (in this instance) being a record of future obligations due to and from parties.


 
What is 'funding'?

Cash reserves?

We are talking about the nuts and bolts of money and money creation. What do you mean man? If you think I am 'thick', then make it clear for me. As you are supposedly the expert, and I the simpleton, it's of course ridiculous for you to expect me to answer several questions rather than you explain one.

I say that you have no idea what you are talking about.





> You said earlier that only LBJ grasps this topic as well as you do.


No, I said that he was the only person on the thread that I considered had a grasp of it.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 29, 2013)

why the rollyeyes?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> What is 'funding'?
> 
> Cash reserves?
> 
> ...


 
Its been explained to you.  Interbank lending.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Its been explained to you. Interbank lending.


Well interbank lending takes the form of increasing the cash reserves of the destination bank, doesn't it?

I'd like to hear LD define 'funding' for himself.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well interbank lending takes the form of increasing the cash reserves of the destination bank, doesn't it?
> 
> I'd like to hear LD define 'funding' for himself.


 
He already has.  You're being completely dishonest.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

Ignorant, thick, dishonest, anti-society, impolite, disrespectful and antisemitic - does Jazzz have any more character flaws to add to this list?

He keeps claiming he's the only one that understands this, yet is completely unwilling to answer perfectly reasonable questions that have been put to him. The only logical conclusion is that he doesn't really have a clue, and takes the loon analysis of banking as an article of faith because to do otherwise is to undermine his ultra-conservative, paranoid, antisocial, antisemitic world view.

I really don't know why anyone is bothering with him now - the only sensible responses to his posts, until he answers the questions put to him, are personal insults.

I suggest that from now on every one of his posts should be responded to with a c&p of the questions he has failed to answer and the words, 'answer these, cunt.'


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> He already has. You're being completely dishonest.


No he hasn't.

If he did say 'interbank lending', well that would omit the rest of the bank's cash, either notes or credits in the bank's bank of england account, wouldn't it?

*What constitutes 'funding'?*



This can't be complicated.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No he hasn't.
> 
> If he did say 'interbank lending', well that would omit the rest of the bank's cash, either notes or credits in the bank's bank of england account, wouldn't it?



Learn to read.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I knew you wouldn't answer. It says much that you resort to insults. I've spent many hours patiently answering and clarifying. If you actually understood this stuff, you'd be at pains too.
> 
> Let me repeat the question:
> 
> ...


ooh you've got some nerve. You resort to insults at the drop of a hat AND you don't answer questions put to you. If you want others to behave this way, start doing answering questions yourself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well interbank lending takes the form of increasing the cash reserves of the destination bank, doesn't it?
> 
> I'd like to hear LD define 'funding' for himself.


I may be wrong here, but I don't think so. As I understand it, interbank lending takes the form of digits on computers, allowing banks to balance their books overnight. That makes borrowing from another bank overnight a liability, not a cash reserve, because the loan has to be repaid. Money on deposit at the Bank of England might be considered a cash reserve, perhaps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> *What constitutes 'funding'?*


Cash plus money on deposit at the BofE plus liabilities in the form of deposits from savers and loans from other banks.

And all assets (loans made by the bank) must be fully matched by the sum of the above. If the bank fails to do this, it's dead. To repeat, this is what happened to Northern Rock, which was heavily reliant on borrowing from money markets and had been taking massive risks by borrowing too short in an attempt to make even more money. Interesting reading about the culture at NR. Employees who warned that they were borrowing too short were marginalised. Large bonuses were on offer for those who boosted short-term profits through very short borrowing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2013)

I've just opened a spreadsheet up and I'm gonna start creating some money - does anyone want to borrow a few grand?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2013)

I think the spreadsheet will only be able to create money if you put on a skullcap and a shawl and recite a few hebrew prayers before typing numbers and formulas into it. Don't forget the candles and the wine either.

Once you've done that you're ready to go, create as much money as you want!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 30, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've just opened a spreadsheet up and I'm gonna start creating some money - does anyone want to borrow a few grand?


Yeah, count me in


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Its been explained to you. Interbank lending.


consider we have four high street banks:

Bank A lends Alf £1000
Bank B lends Bert £1000
Bank C lends Charlie £1000
Bank D lends Dan £1000

interbank lending concerning these loans - must be zero! (symmetry)

So either the loans have been created from nothing, or are being 'funded' some other way. What's happening?

Response to LBJ tomorrow.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've just opened a spreadsheet up and I'm gonna start creating some money


Anyone can create money. It's easy. If you have ever written an IOU you have created money (promissory note). The question is, do people believe you can honour your promises?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> consider we have four high street banks:
> 
> Bank A lends Alf £1000
> Bank B lends Bert £1000
> ...


You're an idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> consider we have four high street banks:
> 
> Bank A lends Alf £1000
> Bank B lends Bert £1000
> ...


Alright, I think I get where you're coming from here. The sum total of all the money in the world is zero - subtracting all debts from all credit. Or at least it would be zero without interest. Interest charges complicate matters somewhat by making a debt larger than the deposit it created. 

And for the banking system in its entirety, it is fairly indifferent even as to whether or not debts are repaid, because repaying the debt destroys the deposit the debt created.

And that is money's function. A person does some work that is of value to another. That other gives the person money, which can then be reimbursed for someone else's work. Initially, that note was produced by someone getting into debt, and in the case of initial seed money for currencies, that debt is never repaid. You'd destroy the currency if you repaid it. The person who has got into debt will have to do some work of value to another at some point to repay the debt - to get back to zero.

In that sense, you're right that money is a promissory note - one that has the general confidence of the population, meaning that it can be passed around.

But, the point others are making here is that an individual bank within the system cannot act with indifference towards the loans it makes because there is no guarantee that the deposit created by the loan will be put back in the same bank. It does need to fund the loan. It needs to balance its books so that the sum total of loan/deposit is zero. It has to finance its assets with liabilities.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz is attempting to look at banks in isolation from the rest of the economy. Which is why i called him an idiot.


----------



## love detective (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I'd like to hear LD define 'funding' for himself.


 
The process of how banks have to fund their loans have been done hundreds of times on threads like these, you've been pointed to the threads, you've been pointed to the posts and you have been unable to counter them. I've explained it you. LBJ has explained it you (and it's worth noting that a year or two ago he had a fairly similar position to you on this, but unlike you he is actually genuinely interested in finding out how things do work and over the last couple of years has changed his outlook on this quite considerably, largely I would say as a result of discussions had on here about it), yet you are unable to engage with these, and instead just keeping repeating the same questions that you don't even realise you've had the answers to, as you don't understand them

Fuck knows why I bother with this, but pages 4 & 5 of this thread from March 2012 talk exactly about how banks have to fund their loans (regardless of whether you subscribe to an exogenous deposit first approach or endogenous loan first approach - for what it's worth I find talking about these things in these two extreme terms doesn't shine much light on what actually happens, exogenous relies on endogenous and endogenous relies on exogenous)

I've copied some posts from it below, but it would be better to read the actual thread to get all the context




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> money can circulate, creating the loans/obligations/'new money' that it leaves in its trace, without increases in central bank money. this is a very basic fact of the monetary system (something that has also been discussed in detail in the earlier pages of this thread). So to show that empirically the money supply races ahead of (proportionally) existing base central bank money, doesn't prove anything near the assertion that money is created out of thin air by a few taps on the keyboard (as you suggest) - all it proves is the a priori fact that at times of increased circulation/activity the supply of money increases, and that supply is not dependent on central bank money to do so. The regulatory aspect of what or how much reserve needs to be held back is not the important thing here in terms of getting to the fundamentals of how things work - the regulatory aspect can hamper/intervene the fundamentals of how it works but it doesn't create those fundamentals
> 
> If there was no requirement to keep any reserves (i.e. the 10% referred to above) this wouldn't magically allow banks to create money out of thin air - all it would mean is that they could lend out £100 for every £100 they got in - if they wanted to lend out £110 for every £100 they got in, then there's no amount of tweaking with regulatory/legal things that could make this happen - no more than you or I could magically lend £10 to someone that we don't have


 



			
				ymu said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you are simply wrong on this. Here's the written evidence to parliament on how the banks did it:


 



			
				love detective said:
			
		

> i'm not wrong on this at all i'm afraid
> 
> this research only compares one part of a bank's funding streams (customer deposits) to its total extension of credit (loans)
> 
> ...


 
/Ctd


----------



## love detective (Mar 30, 2013)

Ctd




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> YMU - here's a snapshot of Northern Rock's balance sheet prior to it's crash (this is a very summarised/condensed down version of it)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 



			
				ymu said:
			
		

> AFAIK the problem was that some of the things that they counted as equivalent to cash deposits for the purposes of lending were nothing like cash deposits in practice.


 



			
				love detective said:
			
		

> the problem was what i referred to above - that northern rock depended upon the wholesale funding markets far too much in relation to its customer lending - this got it into trouble then those markets froze up and as such a big component of its lending was funded in this way, along with the run on the bank which removed another slice of its funding in the shape of reduced customer deposits , leading first to emergency state funding and then it going down the pan


 



			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> I think I can see what ymu's getting at. If you make a loan which will be repaid in 10 years' time, say, and fund that loan with a 'deposit' that you have to repay in 1 year's time, these are not equivalent. You have not funded your 10-year loan at the start of the process, merely a small part of it: ie the idea that the size of a loan is money plus time.


 



			
				love detective said:
			
		

> yes, but that's completely different from saying you can create money out of thin air or you can lend out more than you have already borrowed
> 
> you can only lend out that original loan for ten years, if you have the money in the first place to pass on to the borrower - so it has to be funded initially, and then over the course of the loan, refinanced if the borrowing to fund it didn't exactly match the maturity profile of the loan itself. This is exactly what got Northern Rock into trouble, it borrowed short term on the wholesale markets and lent long term in the mortgage markets - so when the wholesale markets froze up it was left with a huge financing gap when it's shorter term borrowing came up for payment and it wasn't able to renew it and it also wasn't able to liquidise its assets as they were tied up in long term mortgage deals
> 
> this is liquidity risk (and was the cause of a lot of the bank's failures), and it's important to bank's survivial - but it doesn't change the simple fact that if you want to lend something, you have to first fund it - this was the central point being contested earlier - and one which both of you suggested I was wrong about - i'm 100% right on this i'm afraid


 
You could also learn something from reading these two posts here (1 & 2)

And remember your original assertion on all this was that banks didn't need to fund loans at all, that circulation is not required, you said:-




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> circulation is simply not necessary. To give a simple example, if someone deposits £1000 hard cash, the bank doesn't have to pass that £1000 around with other banks or itself making loans that eventually add to credit creation of maybe 30 times. It can simply make thirty loans of £1000 straight off the bat.


 
I'll admit i'm more of a loon now than you for indulging in this as I know you will not read any of the above (just like you didn't read it when previously referred to it) and continue to claim I've never addressed any of this. - utter loon (you and I!)


----------



## TruXta (Mar 30, 2013)

Just... let it go man. Let it go.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2013)

Well he's right, I think, that the sum total of interbank lending must equal zero. But that doesn't change the fact that individual banks within the system can reach a situation where confidence that their assets will be realised (loans repaid) collapses and other banks will no longer lend to them.

In that sense, yes, you're right that you can't look at banks in isolation. The confidence in the assets comes from the state of the real economy. If a bank lends me money to start a business, they do so believing that my business will be a success. When my business fails, that loan has not proved to be productive. If the house I put up as collateral on the debt halves in value after a house price crash, the bank may take possession of it, sell it, and still be left with a shortfall. They may have to write off a loss. But they can only write a loss off against cash reserves. They can't write a loss off against a liability.

Meanwhile, that money they loaned and have now lost remains out there in circulation, but this kind of business failure/loan default puts a dent in the confidence in the currency and must act as an inflationary pressure.

ETa:

Actually, this last bit isn't really true. The bank basically repays the debt itself from its cash reserves, so destroys the deposit it created.


----------



## love detective (Mar 30, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well he's right, I think, that the sum total of interbank lending must equal zero



Of course it's right, but this is just a banal truism. The sum total of all financial transactions (in terms of risks, flows, profits/losses, interest etc) between all parties sums to zero, but this gives no informational content in itself other than the banality that all financial (and non financial) transactions have two parties/sides to them, each of which conducts the equal and opposite of the other. This is something that is predicated in the very notion of a financial transaction (loan, deposit, swap, option, whatever) itself. It's just repeating back what is already predicated in the thing being talked about


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2013)

Yes, you're right. It is a truism. I think Jazzz is stuck on that truism, though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Anyone can create money. It's easy. If you have ever written an IOU you have created money (promissory note). The question is, do people believe you can honour your promises?


 
Well given your willingness to believe any old paranoid crap, I reckon that I'd be able to get you to believe I could if I could somehow show that it is necessary to believe I can act on my promises if you also want to believe that teh jooz Rothschild Zionists international bankers control the world through finance.

But here's the thing - banks don't just write IOUs when a loan is taken out - at that stage the 'money they've created' has no relevance to the wider economy. It doesn't matter until the money is withdrawn and put into circulation. And for that to happen they have to have the money to pay you.

Just like if I write out an IOU to you, you can't spend it if I don't have the money to give to you.

You've still never explained why the financial crisis happened and that link I 'liked' that you claim supports your lunatic theories doesn't support your lunatic theories.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 31, 2013)

love detective said:


> The process of how banks have to fund their loans have been done hundreds of times on threads like these, you've been pointed to the threads, you've been pointed to the posts and you have been unable to counter them. I've explained it you. LBJ has explained it you (and it's worth noting that a year or two ago he had a fairly similar position to you on this, but unlike you he is actually genuinely interested in finding out how things do work and over the last couple of years has changed his outlook on this quite considerably, largely I would say as a result of discussions had on here about it), yet you are unable to engage with these, and instead just keeping repeating the same questions that you don't even realise you've had the answers to, as you don't understand them
> 
> <snip>


 
LD, you've put up HUGE posts of *absolute waffle*.

I'm looking for the simple answer. What is the form of 'funding' which bank uses for loans, if they aren't creating them out of thin air?

A mathematical description please.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I may be wrong here, but I don't think so. As I understand it, interbank lending takes the form of digits on computers, allowing banks to balance their books overnight. That makes borrowing from another bank overnight a liability, not a cash reserve, because the loan has to be repaid. Money on deposit at the Bank of England might be considered a cash reserve, perhaps.





littlebabyjesus said:


> Cash plus money on deposit at the BofE plus liabilities in the form of deposits from savers and loans from other banks.





littlebabyjesus said:


> And all assets (loans made by the bank) must be fully matched by the sum of the above. If the bank fails to do this, it's dead. To repeat, this is what happened to Northern Rock, which was heavily reliant on borrowing from money markets and had been taking massive risks by borrowing too short in an attempt to make even more money. Interesting reading about the culture at NR. Employees who warned that they were borrowing too short were marginalised. Large bonuses were on offer for those who boosted short-term profits through very short borrowing.



'cash reserves' are indeed hard cash (notes in vaults) plus demand deposits at the bank of england. The latter is just a bookkeeping entry, it is a Bank of England liability account to the bank. It is just like the bank accounts we hold. Our deposits are demand liabilities of of our high st bank.

When interbank lending takes place, the money is transferred by the lending bank having their BofE account debited, and the destination bank's BofE account credited. So the 'money' being transferred is a transfer of cash reserves. When the loan is repaid, of course, it goes the other way.

When a customer makes a deposit at a bank, the deposit is a change in the bank's cash reserve. That's because it is either a transfer in of hard cash, or it is a transfer in from another bank ('cleared' exactly as interbank lending above).

So when a bank has to be able to cover a withdrawal, it does so from it's 'cash reserves'. This can be thought of as 'bank of england money'.

The key point is this.* It is not the case that a fractional-reserve bank must have cash reserves to meet its demand liabilities. *This is precisely the meaning of 'fractional reserve'. The cash reserves of a fractional-reserve bank are only a fraction of its demand liabilites.

What this means is that the banks can loan out far more money than they hold in 'cash'.

They can do this because
1) We only want a small percentage of the money we hold to be in notes
2) Just as the customer of one bank might draw on his loan to another bank, customers of the other banks transfer the other way - largely balancing out
3) Where (2) doesn't balance out, interbank lending can smooth over the issues

Generally banks hold 3% of their demand liabilities in cash. That means that the other 97% has been created by them when they make loans. They make the money out of thin air!


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just like if I write out an IOU to you, you can't spend it if I don't have the money to give to you.


 
You haven't understood that the IOU * *is ** money. Not long ago I was in a local coffee shop and didn't have the cash for my hot chocolate. So I wrote an IOU for the hot chocolate, signed with my wet signature, which was put in the till. This piece of paper facilitated the transaction of the hot chocolate. That's what money is, and what money does.

Now if my IOU was made payable to 'the bearer', then the coffee shop owner could have traded it with someone else, and then when they came to me with the note, I would have to honour them instead.

[If you have some cash in your pocket, have a look at it. You'll see that the Bank of England is promising to pay you £10 (or whatever your note is) and it has the Chief Cashier's signature on it]

Now just suppose that my IOUs became accepted as general currency - based on a long history of my being able to honour them when presented. I could start lending, at interest, more IOUs than I had cash to honour them with, because as at any time, a large percentage would be out there!

This is precisely how the goldsmiths created fractional-reserve banking (their IOUs represented gold on deposit). And it is precisely what the High St banks do now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Generally banks hold 3% of their demand liabilities in cash. That means that the other 97% has been created by them when they make loans. They make the money out of thin air!


Because that's their business - making loans. I agree with you that the making of a loan is the creation of money. But the money they create in that process has two parts - the asset and the liability. A bank holds only a fraction of its demand liabilities in cash, and holds the rest of it in the form of assets - its loans.

So, for instance, a bank will not be able to borrow from another bank if that bank thinks its loans are junk. Because the bank will only be able to honour its loan from another bank if its customers also honour their loans from it. And that takes us back to Northern Rock, because this is exactly what happened to them. Where banks lose confidence in each other the system collapses.

It's very revealing to look at the figures for interbank lending in the UK during the madness years of 2002 to 2007. Having been very steady for a long time, creeping up each year to around 200 bn, they zoomed up in those five years to 600 bn. An enormous amount of money was created through loans in this period, created not to represent real added value in the real economy but a house price bubble. As soon as confidence in that bubble was burst, interbank lending collapsed right back down to its previous level of 200 bn, which is more or less where it remains today. This creation of illusory value through the inflation of the price of ownership rights to stocks, shares and indeed houses is what Marx called fictitious capital. It exists purely due to confidence that the price of the assets will continue to rise. Once that confidence disappears, the fictitious value represented by the fictitious capital is wiped out, leaving a whole lot of losers and winners in its wake. David Harvey says something very pertinent about what happens next - pertinent for what is happening now, and written before the credit crunch: "the capitalist class appears to have a choice between devaluing money or commodities, between inflation or depression. In the event that monetary policy is dedicated to avoiding both, it will merely end up incurring both." We are seeing this played out right now.

It is almost as if the shortage in social housing in the UK had been engineered with the purpose of manipulating supply and demand in the private housing market in order to create fictitious capital... Who'd have thunk. The list of evils that Blair/Brown did is a long one, with Iraq at the top, but that they played a key role in making this happen is high on the list. And surprise surprise, Blair made himself a property millionaire out of it.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 1, 2013)

love-detective said:
			
		

> This is just absurd really - every asset on that balance sheet above, is funded by a liability for the exact same amount


I can't quite believe I've read this. It's grade A nonsense. Assets are things you have, or are owed to you. Liabilities are what you owe to others. ['equity' is the difference].

Saying that liabilities 'fund' assets is bizarre.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I can't quite believe I've read this. It's grade A nonsense. Assets are things you have, or are owed to you. Liabilities are what you owe to others. ['equity' is the difference].
> 
> Saying that liabilities 'fund' assets is bizarre.


It's true, though. That asset cannot exist without a liability or cash to back it up - precisely because the bank itself created the asset. I think I'm right in saying that any bank attempting to create assets without backing them with liabilities/cash would be committing criminal fraud.

That's the thing with creating money out of nothing. In order for it to remain a net 'nothing', there have to be two parts that add up to zero. Just as a vacuum can temporarily create a virtual pair of particles - particle and antiparticle - 'out of nothing' - in reality it is simply another way of expressing nothing. Like the two sides of the equation '4 - 4 = 0' are equal. To create the '4' from 0, you also have to create '-4'. When a bank creates money from nothing, it has to be able to account for both the 'money' and the 'antimoney'. The liability is the 'antimoney'.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because that's their business - making loans. I agree with you that the making of a loan is the creation of money. But the money they create in that process has two parts - the asset and the liability. A bank holds only a fraction of its demand liabilities in cash, and holds the rest of it in the form of assets - its loans.


Well I think I nearly agree. Most importantly, fractional reserve banks only get to create money (increasing the amount in circulation) because the practise is not outlawed. Were we to require them to be *solvent* like any other business - i.e. have reserves to meet their demand liabilities at any time, i.e. full-reserve banking, then they could be said to be simply lending money that they already had. And thus the madness well described in the rest of your post would not be possible.

_"[Banks] can lend simply by expanding the two sides of their balance sheet simultaneously, creating (broad) money."_
*Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor for Financial Stability, Bank of England. Speech: ‘Shadow Banking: thoughts for a possible policy agenda’*


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 1, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's true, though. That asset cannot exist without a liability or cash to back it up - precisely because the bank itself created the asset. I think I'm right in saying that any bank attempting to create assets without backing them with liabilities/cash would be committing criminal fraud.
> 
> That's the thing with creating money out of nothing. In order for it to remain a net 'nothing', there have to be two parts that add up to zero. Just as a vacuum can temporarily create a virtual pair of particles - particle and antiparticle - 'out of nothing' - in reality it is simply another way of expressing nothing. Like the two sides of the equation '4 - 4 = 0' are equal. To create the '4' from 0, you also have to create '-4'. When a bank creates money from nothing, it has to be able to account for both the 'money' and the 'antimoney'. The liability is the 'antimoney'.


Well this isn't entirely incorrect but I think muddled.

My biggest asset is a piano. It's got a financial value. On my books, it's an asset worth £x. There's no 'anti-piano' anywhere. There's no corresponding liability on my books.

If I have £300 in the bank, then that's an asset for me, but not a liability for me. It's a liability for the bank.

Yes when a loan is taken out, it takes the form of an asset and a liability on the bank's books. But what happens is that the asset, representing the repayments to come, is just an accounting entry, it doesn't really do much except vanish as the loan is repaid: however, the liability - first taking the form of digits in the customer's account - _circulates. _Let me say again that this what 97% of our money is: it's a credit in a liability account of the bank.

So while you can say that where money is concerned there's matching assets and liabilities, that may be true, but the mirroring is with other entities. Cash reserves are an asset for the bank, matched by a liability for the BofE. Credit accounts are a liability for the bank, an asset for the customer. Etc.

What all businesses are (in general!) trying to do is have more assets and less liabilities. The 'balance sheet' is there as an equity calculation. Equity (net worth) = Assets - Liabilities.

Saying that assets correspond to liabilities in a balance sheet is a bit silly. Even in the case where a bank makes a loan, the asset (total to be repaid) is going to be greater than the liability (the credit in the customer's account). The difference is the bank's equity.


----------



## love detective (Apr 1, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> LD, you've put up HUGE posts of *absolute waffle*.
> 
> I'm looking for the simple answer. What is the form of 'funding' which bank uses for loans, if they aren't creating them out of thin air?
> 
> A mathematical description please.


 
You've asked for and been given comprehensive answers to all your questions so far

The only response you've been able to give to them is that they are 'waffle' 

You've been unable to respond to them other than by insults

I'm not sure whether this is because you don't actually understand them or because you do but engaging with them would pull the rug away from your loon theories

Either way, you've had what you asked for and you've  been unable to engage with any of it

I'll also take your continued and dogmatic refusal to answer the various questions that have been posed to you as an admittance that you not only don't have answers for them, but are unable to answer them without pulling the rug away from underneath the very shaky foundations of your loon theories

I'm going to respond to your post about the matching of assets with liabilities in the next post however, as I think you could do with some basic tuition on how businesses (including banks) account for their activities in their balance sheet (as your previous posts show a gross misunderstanding of this)


----------



## love detective (Apr 1, 2013)

love detective said:
			
		

> This is just absurd really - every asset on that balance sheet above, is funded by a liability for the exact same amount


 


Jazzz said:


> I can't quite believe I've read this. It's grade A nonsense. Assets are things you have, or are owed to you. Liabilities are what you owe to others. ['equity' is the difference].
> 
> Saying that liabilities 'fund' assets is bizarre.


 
It's quite revealing that you made such a major slip up in your reply there Jazz - it really does show that you have a very poor understanding of not only money and credit, but even the simple mechanics of accounting and company balance sheets. It' nothing but a truism that all assets of a business (including banks) are funded by an equivalent amount of liabilities (equity is the ultimate liability of a business to its owners, so is included within the wider category of liabilities). That you don't understand or can even comprehend this gives an indication as to why you are having so many problems understanding some of the more complicated things.

Firstly though, as you correctly say liabilities are what you owe others - think for a moment why would you owe something to another party? You owe something to another party because you've done a transaction with them where you have received something from them in exchange for an obligation from you to do something for them.

In essence the asset (or obligation due from someone else or benefit in some other sense) that you receive from that transaction has been funded by the obligation that you have now undertaken in relation to them. i.e. the liability has funded the acquisition of the asset (your IOU in the coffee shop is a liability which funded the acquisition of your hot chocolate)

You appear to have a very weak understanding and comprehension of what a balance sheet actually is though, both in relation to the interaction between assets & liabilities and also between liabilities and equity. You are correct that the difference between Assets and normal Liabilities is Equity. However Equity is nothing but the ultimate liability of the company to the owners of the company. It's a differernt form of liability as it's not immediately payable, but what it represents is the accumulated amount of money put into the company by its owners/shareholders plus the accumulated amount of profits/losses made by that company. The sum of all this is the equity of the company (or shareholders' funds as it's usually called in the balance sheet) and represents the ultimate liability of the company, that of its net worth to its owners/shareholders

Now, for some basic accounting tuition for you as you clearly are in need of some instruction on the basics. And there is little point in you trying to take part in more complicated topics if you don't even understand the very basics of company accounting and what balances sheets actually represent. We'll use an example of you setting up a Limited company in relation to your piano paying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Step 1 - Initial Setup of Company*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You set up a Limited Company called Jazzz Ltd and put in £1,000 of your own money to the company.

The accounting entries at this stage in the company

Dr Bank £1,000
Cr Share Capital £1,000

Your balance sheet at this stage shows an asset of £1,000 in the bank and an equity amount of £1,000 in the form of share capital.

This £1,000 in the bank of the Limited Company has been funded by the injection of share capital by the shareholder into the company. If you were to wind up the company at this stage, the £1,000 would be returned to you as the sole shareholder in the company. The share capital represents the ultimate liability of the company to that of it's owner.

The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Step 2 - Purchase of Asset*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The company uses £900 in its bank to buy a Piano.

The accounting entries for this transaction are

Dr Fixed Assets (Piano) £900
Cr Bank £900

Your balance sheet at this stage shows:-

Fixed Assets £900
Bank £100
Share Capital (£1,000)

So again like above, the company's asset of the Piano worth £900 and the £100 left in the bank have been funded by injection of share capital by the shareholder into the company.

The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Step 3 - Earning some Revenue*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You play some shows and earn a net revenue of £200

The accounting entries for this transaction are:-

Dr Bank £200
Cr P&L Account £200

Your balance sheet at this stage shows:-

Fixed Assets £900
Bank £300
Share Capital (£1,000)
Accumulated P&L (£200)

The combined assets of the company of £1,200 are still being funded by the ultimate liability of the company to its shareholder in the shape of the £1,000 initial injection into the company and the £200 in accumulated P&L (which could then be paid out to the shareholders in the shape of dividends)

The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Step 4 - Expansion and More Asset Purchases*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to expand, so you take out a loan for £2,000 to buy a Van

The accounting entries for this transaction are:-

Dr Bank £2,000
Cr Amount due to bank £2,000
Representing the initial recording of the loan

Dr Fixed Assets £2,000
Cr Bank £2,000
Representing the usage of loan funds to buy the van

Your balance sheet at this stage shows:-

Fixed Assets - Van £2,000
Fixed Assets - Piano £900
Bank £300
Amount due to bank (£2,000)
Share Capital (£1,000)
Accumulated P&L (£200)

Once again, just like before and just like it will always be, all assets are funded by liabilities. The only difference this time is that some of the assets (The Piano and bank account balance) are funded by the equity/shareholders's funds (which represents the ultimate liability of the company to its owners) and some of the assets (the van) is funded by the liability of the bank loan.

The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Step 5 - Write Down of Value of Asset*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the year, your Van has been valued at only £1,500 so you are forced to write down the value of this asset in your year end accounts

The accounting entries for this transaction are:-

Dr P&L £500
Cr Fixed Assets - Van £500
Representing the write down of the value of the Van

Your balance sheet at this stage shows:-

Fixed Assets - Van £1,500
Fixed Assets - Piano £900
Bank £300
Amount due to bank (£2,000)
Share Capital (£1,000)
Accumulated P&L £300

At this stage the total asset values of the company are stil being funded by a mixture of liabilities to others (the bank loan) and liabilities to shareholders (equity). If the company was to be wound up at this stage, the Van & Piano would be sold off for a total of £2,400 (or whatever value it achieved) with £2,000 of that being used to pay back the loan, leaving a net of £700 cash which would be distributed to the shareholder of the company.

At every stage, at every time above - any asset in the company has been funded by a combination of different types of liabilities of the company

The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities


----------



## killer b (Apr 1, 2013)

it's a bank holiday, loves. let's all go outside. x


----------



## love detective (Apr 1, 2013)

banks create holidays out of thin air


----------



## yield (Apr 1, 2013)

Very good post love detective.


Jazzz said:


> Yes when a loan is taken out, it takes the form of an asset and a liability on the bank's books. But what happens is that the asset, representing the repayments to come, is just an accounting entry, it doesn't really do much except vanish as the loan is repaid: however, the liability - first taking the form of digits in the customer's account - _circulates. _Let me say again that this what 97% of our money is: it's a credit in a liability account of the bank.


I think you're getting confused here between cash, the creation of credit and the velocity of money?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Jazzz is attempting to look at banks in isolation from the rest of the economy. Which is why i called him an idiot.


 
Is this the same kind elementary George Osborne makes when he thinks the country's economy can be run like a single household's?

If so, Jazzz is in good company, I suppose.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Apr 1, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> consider we have four high street banks:
> 
> Bank A lends Alf £1000
> Bank B lends Bert £1000
> ...


 
Why is it that gold-bug types always try to explain themselves using Enid Blyton characters?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2013)

Aunt Fanny lol


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why is it that gold-bug types always try to explain themselves using Enid Blyton characters?


 
Could have been worse...

_Silverstein lends Charlie £1000_ etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 1, 2013)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Why is it that gold-bug types always try to explain themselves using *Enid Blyton characters?*


 

The Secret 7 _kings of the world_


----------



## rekil (Apr 1, 2013)

The Truthseeker Three And The Colloidal Silver Hollow Moon Island Of Jooz And Invisible Planes Mystery.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

love detective said:


> The value of all assets in the company are funded by liabilities


I can't believe that you have spent a vast amount of time on this!

Really, all you are doing when you say this is expressing the accounting equation

assets = liabilities + equity

in a way I find very strange and back to front - take the example of a sole trader who you gift £10,000 to. So he ends up with £10,000. Would you say that his £10,000 (his 'owner's equity') _funded _your gift? And would you say that his equity was something he owed?

But really we know we both agree that assets = liabilities + equity. So what you have done is focus to a ridiculous degree on a semantic quibble. 

You have no understanding of the difference between full and fractional reserve banking.

You like posting up vast posts of either no real content or very tedious content, which impresses most bystanders with apparent complexity, but not me.

You are not able to provide any proper explanation of how fractional reserve banks 'fund' their loans.

You have the understanding of an accountant. You do not understand the deeper mystery of money creation.

If you were truthful, you would admit to being a bit perplexed by it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes this is all accurate, the King James Version of Numbers has it as:
> 
> "Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin.‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the Lord; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long."


Hope I haven't missed this point being made amongst the posts I've been skimming to find the good stuff, but I thought the 'Christian' obsession (obsession of _some_ Christians) with teetotalism originated with capitalism and very little else?

The puritan philosophy says that a man is rewarded for his pious life, so shut the fuck up about us being rich, you poor feckless sinners.

Then, at around the turn of the last century IIRC but maybe earlier, Methodism started proselytising via an early form of alcoholics anonymous. "Look, Jesus _can_ perform miracles! He turned beer into furniture and food for my family!".

Licensing hours were all about industrialists wanting the workers not to be hungover by morning. The moralistic stuff is a justification. Abolishing licensing hours has as much to do with the increasing prevalence of shift-work and different demands from the capitalists as it does with basic common sense (why would you want all the very pissed people spilling out onto the street at exactly the same time  )


----------



## ymu (Apr 2, 2013)

love detective If you're posting quotes from other threads, you can hit 'reply' within those other threads and copy/paste from the reply box to get a link included in your quote. Makes it easier for the terminally lazy to find and follow the original argument.

/top tip


----------



## love detective (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I can't believe that you have spent a vast amount of time on this!
> 
> Really, all you are doing when you say this is expressing the accounting equation
> 
> assets = liabilities + equity


 
Yes, I spent such a long time on it because you clearly could not comprehend it based on your response to my earlier post

Your initial reaction to it was that it was absurd & incredolous, now that you've been pulled up on it by both myself and LBJ you are making out it's so obvious it doesn't merit discussion.

This is an example of your disingenuous approach to discussion, you made a clear error when you implied what I had written was wrong. Then when I genuinely take the time to explain it you in the hope that you might learn something, you then respond in a way which implies you had never doubted it in the first place. Total and utter intellectual dishonesty.



> in a way I find very strange and back to front - take the example of a sole trader who you gift £10,000 to. So he ends up with £10,000. Would you say that his £10,000 (his 'owner's equity') _funded _your gift? And would you say that his equity was something he owed?


 
Again, you don't understand basic accounting

A gift to a company would be recorded in the same way as income is - i.e. the entry would be

Dr Bank £10,000
Cr P&L £10,000

The balance sheet would show an asset of the cash in the bank and the ultimate liability of the accumulated P&L to the owner of the business, i.e. the asset is funded by the liability. The asset of £10,000 cash in the bank of the company only exists because of the company owners equity that supports it. If the company's owner decided to instigate a share buy back or capital return, the £10,000 would be returned to the shareholder and therefore would now no longer be an asset of the company. The asset of the company is funded by the liability.



> But really we know we both agree that assets = liabilities + equity. So what you have done is focus to a ridiculous degree on a semantic quibble.


 
To take it back to the quote you initially responded to - the example of Northern Rock's balance sheet.

You will see that the amount of equity relative to total assets is a tiny percentage. That you chose at that time to engage in a semantic quibble over me correctly classifying equity as a liability of the business, where the equity amount was such a tiny amount shows that this was the only response you were able to make on the post. You avoided the substantive point being made, which is correct, that all assets of that balance sheet were funded by liabilities (notice by the way that even on that balance sheet of Northern Rock above the equity category is included within the wider category of Liabilities).



> You have no understanding of the difference between full and fractional reserve banking.


 
In the last thread that was specifically on full reserve banking (the IMF paper thread) It was you who was shown up not to understand the system that you supposedly support



> You like posting up vast posts of either no real content or very tedious content, which impresses most bystanders with apparent complexity, but not me.


 
You ask for explanations about things you don't understand. When you get them you get into a strop because you either don't understand them or because they pull the rug away from the shaky edifice of your loon theories. If you don't like this happening to you I suggest you don't take part in the debate (or take the time to actually go away and learn some of the basics of this so you are slightly better equipped to take part in a grown up discussion on it)



> You are not able to provide any proper explanation of how fractional reserve banks 'fund' their loans.


 
Unbelievable, you've had countless posts and examples on this - you don't understand it or more correctly you don't like it as it pulls the rug away from your lunacy



> You have the understanding of an accountant. You do not understand the deeper mystery of money creation.


 
hold on, earlier on you were telling us all how simple it is (despite a continued dogmatic avoidance of all questions asked of you on the topic) - now you're saying it's a deep mystery - you're all over the place. And you also seem to have conveniently forgot that the reason this little exchange started was because you were demanding to know accounting entries and making absurd claims about accounting conventions and basically showing a dire understanding of basic accounting principles. I responded to correct your various mistakes and misunderstanding of basic accounting principles on this and you then have the cheek to moan that the discussion has taken on an accountancy focus. You couldn't make it up (but you do).



> If you were truthful, you would admit to being a bit perplexed by it.


 
I'm perplexed by one thing and one thing only by all this - whether you are genuinely a muppet or whether it's something more sinister, i.e. you do actually understand a lot of what I have talked about on these threads, but you know you can't engage with them, nor refute them, so the only course of action you have is to retreat into the nonsense of above


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You have the understanding of an accountant. You do not understand the deeper mystery of money creation.


Yeah, the last person you'd expect to understand money is an accountant.

It's almost as silly as an architect specialising in tall buildings knowing how skyscrapers are made.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 2, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, the last person you'd expect to understand money is an accountant.
> 
> It's almost as silly as an architect specialising in tall buildings knowing how skyscrapers are made.


 
Accountants and architects are blinded by facts. The person you really want to listen to is a mentally ill ex-football commentator for the Troof.


----------



## Random (Apr 2, 2013)

Just to recap for my own benefit. 

The real-world meaning of Jazz politics is thinking that a cartel of international bankers are the ones pulling the strings and we need to focus our energy on "exposing" them and getting a "better" banking system. The real-world meaning of the analysis as proposed by Love Detective is that we need to see capitalism as a broad system of oppression and exploitation that permeates society and we need total social change.

So I don't really need to know any more in order to know what side I'm on...


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

love detective said:


> A gift to a company would be recorded in the same way as income is - i.e. the entry would be
> 
> Dr Bank £10,000
> Cr P&L £10,000
> ...


 
No, because I told you that this company was not incorporated but was a sole trader. Why did I do that? To make clear that equity is NOT really the same as a liability, although it may be on the same side of the equation. The 'equity' for a sole trader isn't owed to anyone! It's NOT A LIABILITY.

And I'm sorry but saying that assets are 'funded' by liabilities is just plain BIZARRE thinking. This implies that liabilities are a desirable thing for a business to have!

If you apply for 'funding' what do you look for - people you might owe more money to?

When your electricity bill drops through the post, do you say, "hurrah, more funding!"?

Let's suppose you are on the road in the 19th Century. You have your life savings of £1000 in gold coins.

Love-detective's balance sheet:

Assets: £1000
Liabilities: £0
LD's equity: £1000

Please note that you don't owe your equity to anyone.

Suddenly, a bizarre scoundrel appears with a gun.

*"I'm going to give you some funding!"* he says, meaning he wants you to give him all your money.

Now, a liability exists between you and the scoundrel for the £1000. So your balance sheet is, before you give him the coins,

Assets: £1000
Liabilities: £1000
LD's equity: £0

GREAT!


----------



## love detective (Apr 2, 2013)

Do many banks operate today as sole traders Jazzz? No of course they don't - I can see though why you are so desperate to swing the discussion to that of an individual sole trader and away from the topic of the thread, an analysis of how bank's work

Unfortunately for you though, everything I have written is 100% correct in relation to not only limited companies but conceptually correct even in relation to sole traders - the notion of owing the equity of your own business to yourself may seem a little odd but it really isn't

And your example is bizarre, as you seem to think that proving that when someone robs you, you have less net worth than before they robbed you proves any kind of point, is wonderfully cute really

That the only retort to my points about the money, credit and banking systems you could come up with was an example of a bizarre scoundrel in the 19th century or the example of a gass bill (while continuing to ignore the questions put to you by me and other on this thread earlier) shows the limits of your ability to engage with the discussion at hand, i.e. fuck all.

I suggest you take some time out to look at the financial accounts of some banks Jazz and familiarise yourself with them - this might lead to a filling in of a few gaps in your current knowledge

Start with a nice simplified balance sheet of Northern Rock in 2007:-



As we can see, total liabilities include the equity of the business, but more importantly and hardly earth shattering news, the balance sheet balances. Every Asset in the asset section is funded by one or more of the liability categories (including equity).

See that Bank of England loan of £28m in 2007, that's when NR had to start relying on state aid to fund their loan/mortgage book when their access to the normal money markets froze up in 2007. That liability to the BOE (representing money borrowed from them) partially funded the loans & advances figures you see in the asset section

See the customer accounts figure of £12bn, that's the level of customer deposits held at the bank by customers at the end of that year. That money (liabilities of the bank representing deposits placed at it by customers) was used partly to fund the loans you see in the asset section. Those liabilities to customers (representing money deposited at the bank by customers) partially funded the loans & advances figures you see in the asset section.

See the mortgage backed securities figure of £43bn, this represents borrowings that NR took on through issuing MBS debt securities. Those liabilities to the purchasers of those mortgage backed securities partially funded the loans & advances figures you see in the asset section.

And so on and so on

This is basic stuff Jazz

I'm going to ask you a question now which I know you cannot and will not answer:-

If you still disagree that those liabilities on NR's balance sheet are in no way whatsoever being used to fund the assets on that balance sheet, answer me this, why do those liabilities exist? what are they for? why would NR agree to take on those liabilities if they were not getting something in return for them (i.e. the ability to fund assets/loans)?

You don't seem to have the clarity of mind to cut through the crap and see this for what it is.

Even if an asset is not directly or immediately funded by a liability, it is always ultimately funded by it. What I mean by that is this:-

You as a sole trader borrow £1,000 from a bank. At that point in time you have an asset in the form of money of £1,000 and a liability in the form of a bank loan to be repaid of £1,000. You use the £1,000 to buy a Piano. Now this direct transaction of buying the Piano has obviously been funded by the £1,000 that was already 'in' your bank account.However the only reason it was there in the first place was because of the initial liability taken on by you in the form of the bank loan to enable the £1,000 to be put 'in' the account. You even gave an example that proves my case earlier on in this thread. The IOU you gave to the coffee shop represented a liability taken on by you to enable you to fund the purchase of the hot chocolate (and before you start, yes liabilities can by used either to fund assets or pay expenses, but as this is supposed to be a thread about how bank's fund their assets, we are focussing on the using of liabilities to fund assets here)

and this:-




			
				Jazz said:
			
		

> And I'm sorry but saying that assets are 'funded' by liabilities is just plain BIZARRE thinking. This implies that liabilities are a desirable thing for a business to have!


 
No, it doesn't imply that liabilities are a desirable thing for a business to have, it implies that they are a necessary part of a business if it is to do anything. It shows the simple fact that a business cannot just magic an asset out of thin air. That if they want to acquire any asset (financial or tangible) it has to be funded by something. And that funding, whether it be a liability to others or the liability to the owners of the business in the form of equity itself, is the opposite of an Asset. That's why balance sheet's balance.

An asset is the right to a future benefit (or more correctly _'An asset is a resource controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the enterprise'_) A liability is a future obligation (or more correctly _'an obligation of an entity arising from past transactions or events') _. Banks, just like any other business, trade by taking on obligations (liabilities) in order to gain obligations from others (assets). To the extent that their Assets exceed Liabilities (excluding equity) this then represents the net worth of the business, but this in itself is still funding part of the overall Assets of the company. As as you even say yourself. Liabilities + Equity = Assets. It's basic stuff Jazz

Your attempts to sway this onto a semantic discusion about the differences between equity & liability are quite telling - equity represents a tiny fraction of a bank's balance sheets, so it's pretty irrelevant to our discussion (although important conceptually in other ways). As we can see from NR's balance sheet above, equity is a tiny amount of total assets. Putting equity to aside for the sake of argument, we see that every asset on NR's (and every other company's) balance sheet is funded by a mixture of different liabilities.

And by the way, any update on the seven questions that you promised to answer nearly a week ago now and have yet to even touch. Can't be that tough can they?

Night loon


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

God this is tedious.

If you say, "businesses may increase their liabilities in order to acquire assets" I'm with you all the way.

If you say, "assets are funded by liabilities" that is just silly. Assets are assets, liabilities are liabilities.

Your cocaine habit does not 'fund' your cash under the mattress. 

The reason balance sheets balance is that they have to: they are there to measure equity, the value of the business, which is the difference of assets and liabilities.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> God this is tedious.
> 
> If you say, "businesses may increase their liabilities in order to acquire assets" I'm with you all the way.
> 
> ...


Why don't you just answer the 7 questions previously asked of you, instead of posting all this crap? For once?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

You're just putting the same thing in different words now, I think.

So a bank increases its liabilities in order to acquire new assets. It borrows in order to loan. It's no more complicated than that. In order to create a new loan, the bank does need two things - someone to lend to and someone to borrow from. They can effectively create the money needed for both of these things to happen, but they still need those two external actors to facilitate the circulation of that money that creates the obligations within the economy that give the whole thing its meaning.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't think I've ever seen Jazzz quite so flustered  See Jazzz, the thing is the value-production in the system isn't the money being created and circulated - it's the social work of labour and production. Money is an expression of that, one of many. Money isn't magicked out of nothing, neither is value.

Fuck, why do I ever bother.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz is nearly there I think, when he says that money is a promisory note. It is. But then the thing to consider is: what exactly is a promisory note, and what needs to happen for it to be meaningful?


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

love detective said:


> And by the way, any update on the seven questions that you promised to answer nearly a week ago now and have yet to even touch. Can't be that tough can they?


Wrong, I don't think I've promised to answer your questions LD, sorry. I'd rather have you explain what happens when banks make a loan - where does the money come from, if not thin air? This you really haven't done at all. Actually, don't bother replying, you have ground me down with sheer boredom. Much like freespirit in a previous thread.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Money isn't magicked out of nothing, neither is value.


Money is indeed magicked out of nothing!

I don't want to get sidetracked onto 'value' as it's subjective


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Money is indeed magicked out of nothing!
> 
> I don't want to get sidetracked onto 'value' as it's subjective


Particular manifestations or expressions of value can be subjective. There's however nothing subjective about the labour and time that goes into manufacturing, services, agriculture or what have you. That's one part of where money comes from. You with us so far?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

Try this one:

What happens to a bank when this situation arises:

Assets > liabilities + cash 

?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jazzz is nearly there I think, when he says that money is a promisory note. It is. But then the thing to consider is: what exactly is a promisory note, and what needs to happen for it to be meaningful?


Careful with that sort of line, you'll have the Witchfinder General here in a minute, muttering about symbols and witches.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're just putting the same thing in different words now, I think.
> 
> So a bank increases its liabilities in order to acquire new assets. It borrows in order to loan. It's no more complicated than that. In order to create a new loan, the bank does need two things - someone to lend to and someone to borrow from. They can effectively create the money needed for both of these things to happen, but they still need those two external actors to facilitate the circulation of that money that creates the obligations within the economy that give the whole thing its meaning.


 
This is actually what happens when you take out a loan:

You create a 'promissory note' (the loan agreement). This is money. You create it out of a piece of paper and pen, with your wet signature. (!)

The bank takes it and puts it in their vault. Their asset.

In exchange, they credit your bank account (which is literally part of the bank's books, a liability account) with the amount of the loan. _That is the loan._

_



What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"].

Click to expand...

_*Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

The value represented by money isn't subjective. For me to buy an apple from you for 50p, we both have to agree to that price of 50p. One side of the transaction alone cannot decide the price - although of course relative power relations can give one side more leverage.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Try this one:
> 
> What happens to a bank when this situation arises:
> 
> ...


cash is an asset.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> This is actually what happens when you take out a loan:
> 
> You create a 'promissory note' (the loan agreement). This is money. You create it out of a piece of paper and pen, with your wet signature. (!)
> 
> ...


But for that money to do anything, it has to leave the account. As soon as it does leave the acount, the bank must fund that loss of a liability by replacing it with another liability.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> cash is an asset.


Replace the word 'asset' with 'loans made' then if you prefer.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But for that money to do anything, it has to leave the account. As soon as it does leave the acount, the bank must fund that loss of a liability by replacing it with another liability.


That or its assets are reduced (e.g. hard cash is removed, or credits in it BofE account are reduced).

But the key point (as ever!) is this: just as money (in the form of demand liabilities) leaves one bank to go to another, the same flow is expected, on average, the other way. (And just in case it is really off, then they can call on the interbank lending market).

This is what enables banks to cover £100,000 of loans with just £3000 cash reserves and not get caught out!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2013)

Yes, and this flow of money around banks is smoothed out by overnight interbank lending, which allows individual banks within the system to balance their books.

You are now essentially agreeing with love detective's position.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 3, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Wrong, I don't think I've promised to answer your questions LD, sorry. I'd rather have you explain what happens when banks make a loan - where does the money come from, if not thin air? This you really haven't done at all. Actually, don't bother replying, you have ground me down with sheer boredom. Much like freespirit in a previous thread.


Yes, you did, on the previous page. Here is your post:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-federal-reserve.295325/page-41#post-12099272


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 3, 2013)

Plus, free spirit gave some excellent explanations of why there was no nanothermite in the other thread. You weren't bored, Jazzz, you were defeated by science and facts. I seem to remember you didn't like to answer the most basic of questions on that thread either...


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 3, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, and this flow of money around banks is smoothed out by overnight interbank lending, which allows individual banks within the system to balance their books.


But what LD doesn't appear to appreciate is that when banks make loans, that is where the money is created. The money is created from nothing.

My position hasn't changed an iota!

The High St. banks cannot create cash, or credits in BofE accounts. That is the money that is transferred through interbank lending. That is the 3% of our money. The 97% of our money is High St. bank money, created from nothing in the form of their loans. The reason they get away with this is because we only withdraw 3% or our money in cash.

It's really a source of confusion to consider multiple high street banks and the interbank lending market - they like it like this!

I strongly recommend combining all the High St banks into one for the purposes of understanding money creation. Then, you have the BofE creating hard cash (notes) and then our one high st bank (Barclloyds THSBC) loaning out money created from nothing, much like an online casino can lend you chips it has created from nothing, after all, you are going to simply transfer them to other players.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, you did, on the previous page. Here is your post:
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-federal-reserve.295325/page-41#post-12099272


I responded to LBJ in some detail. 

Please stop your silly heckling from the sidelines. If you have a comment or question to make about money, then do that.


----------



## love detective (Apr 3, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> God this is tedious.


 
As expected and predicted, you weren't able to even address the question asked of you in my previous post, here it is again just in case you think you can hide from it again:-



> I'm going to ask you a question now which I know you cannot and will not answer:-
> 
> If you still disagree that those liabilities on NR's balance sheet are in no way whatsoever being used to fund the assets on that balance sheet, answer me this, why do those liabilities exist? what are they for? why would NR agree to take on those liabilities if they were not getting something in return for them (i.e. the ability to fund assets/loans)?


 


Jazzz said:


> Wrong, I don't think I've promised to answer your questions LD, sorry.


 
Well yes you did actually here and requests from you to do so by others are here and here - I presume you've looked at them and realised you can't touch them as you don't have a leg to stand on

Here they are - if you're so sure of your position, address them rather than hide from them:-




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> and if they can create cash out of thin air why is it possible for bank's to even make losses in the first place
> 
> why do they have to go to the state for money when they can just conjure it up
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> Well yes you did actually here and requests from you to do so by others are here and here - I presume you've looked at them and realised you can't touch them as you don't have a leg to stand on
> 
> Here they are - if you're so sure of your position, address them rather than hide from them:-


There is a measure of self-awareness from jazzz in the first link there:

"both disturbingly simple and fantastically weird "


----------



## JimW (Apr 3, 2013)

It's pretty revealing that Jazz doesn't want to talk about value - easy to think you can create money out of nowhere if in your mad conceit it's not related to value and the social power to appropriate it. But as it's only empty numbers then, why's he so bothered about how much or little is created and by what process?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 3, 2013)

"Waffle" is a favourite word of his. In his world it means "any reply longer than one sentence that I either don't understand or disagrees with me"


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 3, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I responded to LBJ in some detail.
> 
> Please stop your silly heckling from the sidelines. If you have a comment or question to make about money, then do that.


You responded after my post reminding you of your promise to respond which you had previously denied doing. 

And 'silly heckling'? Lovely bit of casual sexism there, Jazzz. Please don't talk to me like that again, as I have previously asked you.

The comments I have about money are that love detective has explained this patiently and in some detail, and I am learning a lot from him. If you cared to pay attention to his posts, you would as well.


----------



## love detective (Apr 3, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But for that money to do anything, it has to leave the account. As soon as it does leave the acount, the bank must fund that loss of a liability by replacing it with another liability.


 
I've been in this exact position with Jazz before (it always ends up at this point, as the logic of the discussion dictates that it will). He was forced to admit that his grand theory only held true if the person who owned the account that the loan had credited money to, didn't actually do anything with the money! i.e. it just sat in the bank account and was never used, never transferred anywhere else, never used to buy anything with. That's the only way he could square his theory with the truth.

So in essence, boiled down, what Jazzz's astonishing point in all this is that as long as you never want to do anything with the money 'created' from a loan, then banks do indeed create that money out of thin air. This in fact is true but so utterly ridiculous and devoid of any explanatory power about how the credit system actually works. That he has to rely on an exception to the norm, that would never (or very rarely) happen in real life to support his general theory of money & credit tells us pretty much all we need to know about the usefulness of Jazz thought. It's the equivalent of saying that I definitely can make some magic beans that if sown in the ground will grow a huge beanstalk, but they only work if you never use them. If you try to use them they won't work. But i definitely can make them. And they definitely work as long as you don't want to make use of them.

He even tried to attempt to argue that people all over the world were taking out loans, and then leaving the money 'created' by the loan in their bank account and not doing anything with it, but somehow they were rationally going around taking out loans regardless (while paying interest on the loan amount due) - it was pretty much the pinacle of his lunacy (in this area)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> banks do indeed create that money out of thin air. This in fact is true


Three paragraphs, yet these are the only words he will read.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 3, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Money is indeed magicked out of nothing!
> 
> *I don't want to get sidetracked onto 'value' as it's subjective*


 
No, of course you don't.  It would require you to do some thinking about politics.


----------



## love detective (Apr 3, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Three paragraphs, yet these are the only words he will read.


 
Indeed. And I can see absolutely why all these money loons believe what they do - because the snippets of information that are fed to them about how the money & credit system works, taken in isolation and totally out of context and in a situation that would never happen in real life, can indeed point to the 'feeling' that banks do indeed create money out of thin air. And that is enough for them, they are not interested in actually finding out how the system does actually work from the perspective of a 'disinterested' inquirer - they only need enough cropped and distorted misunderstood information to back up the conclusion that they had already made before even looking at the thing. Science!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> the snippets of information that are fed to them... taken in isolation and totally out of context


This is a rather common theme with Jazzz. The great irony of most CT loons is that while they claim to look at "the bigger picture" they do precisely the opposite. Nothing has context, nothing has links, no politics, no history. The world is just a black and white place where everything fits into neat little categories. BAD pharma, GOOD alternative therapy. BAD government, GOOD freeman etc.


----------



## love detective (Apr 3, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is a rather common theme with Jazzz. The great irony of most CT loons is that while they claim to look at "the bigger picture" they do precisely the opposite.


 
Yep exactly

As an example - here is an article which explains rather well the process of money & credit creation (from a fairly unlikely source to be fair)

Now taken overall this article is correct and explains the situation quite well - however you can see how reading say the first half of it could give someone who doesn't really care about understanding something properly the impression that money is created out of thin air by banks and that they don't have to fund the loans that they make to others.

But reading further on, when we get to the point where the person taking out the loan actually wants to do something with that money (the point made by LBJ a few posts above in his response to Jazz), we see that the situation is somewhat different. And that ultimately the bank doesn't create the money out of thin air, but effectively mediates a position between the person they are lending to and the party that they ultimately fund the loan from (this is the case, despite the articles rather strong usage of the phrase _'loans create deposits'_ - while narrowly and tecnically true, if the borrower wants to use the 'money' created for anything, it has to be funded from somewhere, so it remains in essence that _'deposits enables the use of loans'_)

This article explains fully the whole process of the initial creation of loan to usage of the money 'created' by that loan. Jazzz has continually focussed on the first part only, the accounting entries that setup the initial asset & liabilities, but he has never been able to explain or even address the next step - what happens when someone wants to make use of that 'money'. The important phrase used in the article is the 'withdrawl liability' of the bank. i.e. what happens when someone actually wants to make use of the money 'created' by the loan. Jazzz can't focus on this because to do so would force him to admit that the bank needs to fund the loan position created, meaning banks don't create money out of thin air, they merely circulate & mediate other parties' activities

I suspect it's accounts like this that give Jazzz and his ilk the notions that they do have (as the language used in articles like this can often give people who don't quite understand it the idea that it is saying something different to what it is, or alternatively they know what it's saying but selectively take bits out of context to give an altogether different picture) - it's just a pity they don't have any desire to actually understand the truth of things when seeking out their truths

I've copied the full article out below in the next post so the whole context can be seen (and bolded the bits that Jazzz and his crew never address/mention - if you read the article up until the first bit i've bolded, it can quite easily when taken out of context support the crackpot lunacy that Jazz spouts on here). The article also gives a good overview of the need to raise money for capital requirements on the loans and reserve requirements for the deposits that are created as a result of the loan/deposit process, something that is usually left out in these discussions as it just confuses things further)

_Article to Follow in Next Post_


----------



## love detective (Apr 3, 2013)

article said:
			
		

> When someone says "loans create deposits," usually that means at least that the marginal impact of new lending will be to create a new asset and a new liability for the banking system. But in our system it's actually a bit more complicated than that.
> 
> A bank makes a loan to a borrowing customer. This simultaneously, creates a credit and a liability for both the bank and the borrower. The borrower is credited with a deposit in his account and incurs a liability for the amount of the loan. The bank now has an asset equal to the amount of the loan and a liability equal to the deposit. All four of these accounting entries represent an increase in their respective categories: the bank's assets and liabilities have grown, and so has the borrower's.
> 
> ...


 
And for be benefit of Jazzz - here is a post I wrote well over a year ago outlining the difference between the accounting entries that are created when the loan is initially setup and the flow of funds to fund the position when the loan is actually drawn on. It matches the above description almost exactly. I made the point at the time that these initial accounting entries were not the full picture, and not the most important part either. Jazz however doesn't understand that there is more to the picture than these initial accounting entries. There are real flows that have to happen for that money to be used as money. Until then it's nothing but magic beans that will only work if you dont use them. Crazy.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 4, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You responded after my post reminding you of your promise to respond which you had previously denied doing.


No. You are simply wrong. You confuse LD and LBJ, fairly clear distinctions between posters on this thread. You confuse time. One post where you make such a mistake is one thing. To come back at me after I point it out is ridiculous. You have no other contribution to make except fawn pathetically over my opponent. Go away. Bother me on other threads.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> And for be benefit of Jazzz - here is a post I wrote well over a year ago outlining the difference between the accounting entries that are created when the loan is initially setup and the flow of funds to fund the position when the loan is actually drawn on. It matches the above description almost exactly.


Nonsense.

How do these 'funds flow' if not by change in accounting entries?

Do little mice carry the money?



I think I understand your mindset now.

You seem to think that what I (and others) have been saying when we say that banks create money out of nothing is that they have an infinite supply and if they wished could create enough to make anyone especially themselves rich and never go bust... 

We've established that banks create money out of nothing when they make loans: they simply expand both sides of their balance sheet.

THEN the question is: how do they cover the loan being drawn on? Because to do that, they need cash: either hard cash, should the loanee want cash: or credits in their BofE account (stop me if there is anything you don't agree with there).

So my question to you, the exact one I asked earlier and you couldn't answer, is this:

Do banks need enough cash reserves to cover the loan being made, or cash reserves to cover their entire demand liabilities?


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> Jazzz can't focus on this because to do so would force him to admit that the bank needs to fund the loan position created, meaning banks don't create money out of thin air, they merely circulate & mediate other parties' activities


We've also established that your definition of 'funded' is highly bizarre. Your definition says that 'owner's equity', as a liability, 'funds' the assets on the balance sheet.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No. You are simply wrong. You confuse LD and LBJ, fairly clear distinctions between posters on this thread. You confuse time. One post where you make such a mistake is one thing. To come back at me after I point it out is ridiculous. You have no other contribution to make except fawn pathetically over my opponent. Go away. Bother me on other threads.


 
Is it just me or is there a nasty streak of barely concealed sexism running through this post?


----------



## love detective (Apr 4, 2013)

Absolutely no engagement with anything of substance posted above once again Jazzz, just a few more attempts to conflate & confuse the hammering you've received, plus a fair amount of backtracking now you've read the article I linked to and realised there's been a substantial chunk missing from your own understandings of how things work

Banks can definitely create money out of thin air, but only to the extent that everyone agrees not to use that money for anything (but still agree to pay interest on the money 'borrowed') - that's your loon theory in a nutshell Jazz - sounds kind of daft when it's distilled down to its essence doesn't it. At least you now agree that bank's don't really create money out of thin air in any meaningful sense of the phrase. It's like saying that petrol cars can run without petrol and this is definitely true, but they won't work if you try and use them, but if you don't use them they can definitely run without petrol.

Busted flush


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2013)

As if we didn't already know that.


----------



## love detective (Apr 4, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> We've also established that your definition of 'funded' is highly bizarre. Your definition says that 'owner's equity', as a liability, 'funds' the assets on the balance sheet.


 
You are a muppet aren't you

If the equity of a business was withdrawn (through say a share capital buyback or special dividend) an equivalent amount of assets would need to be liquidiated & sold to effect that withdrawl (or just paid out if there was enough liquid funds already) - therefore the continued existence of the equity in the business funds an equivalent amount of assets of that company

It's yet another banal truism that you cannot get your head around - the equity of a company helps fund the ownership of assets in that company

What do you think happens when a company is setup and its shareholders put money into it and then invest that money in business assets? The equity has funded those assets. That you can't get your head around this is incredible.

Jazz Ltd is setup with a £1,000 capital injection from David Icke. Jazz Ltd uses that money to buy a Piano. At that point the company's balance sheet consists of an Asset of a £1,000 Piano and Equity of £1,000 Share Capital/Equity. The Equity has funded the Asset of the company. If you wanted to buy more equipment but David Icke didn't trust you enough to put more equity into the company, you might borrow another £1,000 of a friend, this would then be used to buy more equipment. Your balance sheet would then show £2,000 of assets, £1,000 of liabilities and £1,000 of Equity. The Equity & Liabilities of the company fund the assets of that company. If there is a threat of the withdrawl of any of your equity or liability of that company you would be forced to sell equipment to pay it back (or replace it with alternative funding - either in the shape of equity or borrowings). This by the way is exactly what happened with Northern Rock, it was uable to continue to roll over its short term market based funding (which was funding its long term mortgage loans) when the markets froze and therefore had to call on state aid to replace that lost funding You of course have argued up until recently when you were exposed, that banks don't need to fund themselves at all however.

I can't boil this down any simpler than that. If you're still having problems I'd suggest getting an Accounting For Dummies book and reading up on the basics.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

Jazzz - did you say what really went wrong with Northern Rock or did I miss it?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> No. You are simply wrong. You confuse LD and LBJ, fairly clear distinctions between posters on this thread. You confuse time. One post where you make such a mistake is one thing. To come back at me after I point it out is ridiculous. You have no other contribution to make except fawn pathetically over my opponent. Go away. Bother me on other threads.


 
I don't think she has done any of those things Jazzz.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

As well as the other stuff there's a very definite whiff of _go away little girl, the men are talking _off jazzz isn't there?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As well as the other stuff there's a very definite whiff of _go away little girl, the men are talking _off jazzz isn't there?


 
Not sure of that, I  can see how you could read it that way but I think he would have adopted the same bitchy tone with a male poster.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure of that, I can see how you could read it that way but I think he would have adopted the same bitchy tone with a male poster.


Not sure, he's done it with equationgirl over the course of three long threads now - he even accused her above of _fawning_ over male poster ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

She's not stupid and she hasn't been doing anything like what he says, she's a highly intelligent woman.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 4, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure of that, I can see how you could read it that way but I think he would have adopted the same bitchy tone with a male poster.


 
I don't think so. I've made similar points to EG on this thread, and I've said that I think LD knows his stuff  - yet I've not been accused of 'fawning over' him, and he's not dismissed me in the same way. He reeks of it IMO.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure, he's done it with equationgirl over the course of three long threads now - he even accused her above of _fawning_ over male poster ffs.


 
I kind of interpreted it as the usual bitchiness but you may have a point - Jazzz would know for sure.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think so. I've made similar points to EG on this thread, and I've said that I think LD knows his stuff - yet I've not been accused of 'fawning over' him, and he's not dismissed me in the same way. He reeks of it IMO.


 
Fair enough - was just going by a couple of posts and I haven't been as involved in the thread as others - just been popping in now and then after a straight answer from him regarding a couple of these money-related things.




			
				frogwoman said:
			
		

> She's not stupid and she hasn't been doing anything like what he says, she's a highly intelligent woman.


 
She can read in hex, apparently.

3B29


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2013)

It's Dr. equationgirl.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

Cant do it now because I'm working and I don't fancy searching for such a thing while at work but I'm going to post up that Casa Pound picture showing the fist grasping the snake of "finance". As keeps being said it's not merely an incomplete critique of capitalism it's a critique of capitalism associated with a particular ideology. After years on this forum I cannot believe that Jazzz could have read all of these patiently explained posts from Love Detective and others and still be unwilling to understand them, I know economics is a difficult thing to understand and I don't fully understand it myself, but his explanations have been as clear as any I've read.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is it just me or is there a nasty streak of barely concealed sexism running through this post?


No, it's not just you.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 4, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> How do these 'funds flow' if not by change in accounting entries?
> 
> Do little mice carry the money?


 
no people with big noses do


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> After years on this forum I cannot believe that Jazzz could have read all of these patiently explained posts from Love Detective and others and still be unwilling to understand them, I know economics is a difficult thing to understand and I don't fully understand it myself, but his explanations have been as clear as any I've read.


 
It's totally expected I'd say. The thing is what Jazzz basically deals with are revealed truths. He knows he's right, therefore anyone disagreeing is wrong by definition. He might engage with them to a point but he can't be bothered to do it fully - why bother taking the time when you know it's all wrong?


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> After years on this forum I cannot believe that Jazzz could have read all of these patiently explained posts from Love Detective and others and still be unwilling to understand them, I know economics is a difficult thing to understand and I don't fully understand it myself, but his explanations have been as clear as any I've read.


You aren't going to fully understand money creation by reading love-detective posts.

The extraordinary thing is that in these threads I back up my position by several quotes from economists who really know their stuff. I can't recall love-detective ever quoting anyone.

For instance, we had the Ann Pettifor link earlier (the one Spiney Norman liked, then when I pointed out it agreed with me totally, said he was reading it, then we haven't heard back from that).

The power to create money out of thin air - Ann Pettifor

I eagerly await anyone to find any quote from any serious economist to say echo love-detective's bizarre comment that "assets are funded by liabilities". Because that is nonsense, and it's come about because LD has had to adjust his position because he has had to make it up as he goes along. I invite all the participants fawning over love-detective - for no other reason that he is taking a contrary view to mine here, to find such a quote. At least Spiney Norman has had a go talking about money so puts his head above the parapet so to speak. My greatest disdain is for those that simply snipe. What's the point? I don't get it.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> You are a muppet aren't you
> 
> If the equity of a business was withdrawn (through say a share capital buyback or special dividend) an equivalent amount of assets would need to be liquidiated & sold to effect that withdrawl (or just paid out if there was enough liquid funds already) - therefore the continued existence of the equity in the business funds an equivalent amount of assets of that company
> 
> ...


 
I like the way you have moved from 'fund' to 'helps fund'. Which is it? 

Let me give you another example. You set our your company, love-detective ltd, in which you write fictional stories of forensic accountants solving mysteries. You own the only share. Initially, your assets, liabilities and equity are all zero. You then write a book from the comfort of your own home at no expense in your spare time.  Then, a major publisher takes it on and pays you £100,000 for all rights to the work. So, you now have

assets: £100,000
liabilities: £0
equity £100,000

So, how did your assets get 'funded'?

I say your equity came from your assets. And your assets were funded by the publisher.

But if you wish to bizarrely claim that your equity funded your assets, by your creation of the company, then you may be my guest, because - drum roll - _you would be saying that £100,000 has been 'funded' out of thin air._

__


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> How do these 'funds flow' if not by change in accounting entries?
> 
> Do little mice carry the money?


Note to all - no answer to this one. This should be very simple if LD really understood money.

Anyone else have any idea?


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Note to all - no answer to this one. This should be very simple if LD really understood money.
> 
> Anyone else have any idea?


Little mice *have* to carry the money because they haven't got any pockets.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I like the way you have moved from 'fund' to 'helps fund'. Which is it?
> 
> Let me give you another example. You set our your company, love-detective ltd, in which you write fictional stories of forensic accountants solving mysteries. You own the only share. Initially, your assets, liabilities and equity are all zero. You then write a book from the comfort of your own home at no expense in your spare time. Then, a major publisher takes it on and pays you £100,000 for all rights to the work. So, you now have
> 
> ...


 
Equity can either fund completely the assets of the company or can help to fund them with the rest being funded by liabilities (which is why I gave two stages of the example above, the first when the equity of Jazz Ltd funded all of the assets in the company when the only asset was the Piano, and the next when a further £1,000 of assets were purchased and funded by a loan from a friend. At that stage the £2,000 of assets in the company were funded partly by £1,000 of equity and partly by £1,000 of liabilities (i.e. borrowings)

Why I am bothering even replying to your example above I don't know, but here you are:-

The assets of love detective ltd (the 100 grand in the bank) are funded by the equity that continues to be left in the company by the shareholder(s)

The equity at that stage represents the accumulated profits of the company

If the shareholder(s) wanted to withdraw that equity (through dividends in this case as the equity represents realised profits), there would no longer be 100 grand of assets in the love detective ltd

Therefore the only way it is possible for love detective limited to continue to have 100 grand of assets in the company is if the owners of the equity allow it to remain within the company

The equity of the company funds the continued existence of the assets in that company

This is exactly the same example I gave above, and one which you clearly are struggling to get your head around

Nice avoidance of all the other topics though


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2013)

You made a mistake in your example, jazzz. You said 'you now have'. That's not right. ' Love detective ltd now has' is what you should have said.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Note to all - no answer to this one. This should be very simple if LD really understood money.
> 
> Anyone else have any idea?


 
Why should I continue to provide patient and detailed answers to your questions when you have yet to answer one question that has been put to you by me or anyone else - you've dodged every single pertinent question from the start of this exchange, preferring to settle in tangential safe cul-de-sacs to detract attention away from your continued inability to give answers to simple questions asked of you

I was looking through one of the earlier threads to see if you had ever answered a question I had put you and the one example that I did find where you attempted to answer a question, I think explains why you no longer attempt to answer questions.

During a discussion you had claimed, as you always do, that banks do not need to fund the lending that they make

I then asked you why, in that case, did european banks have to borrow over a trillion euros from the ECB in December 2011/February 2012. My answer to this was the correct answer that they had to rely on this funding to replace previously held market funding that they could not longer secure (or believed they couldn't secure in the coming year or so) so needed the backstop facility of the ECB

Your answer was that in 2011/2012 those banks must have made new lending of 30 trillion euros - and that was why they needed to borrow 1 trillion from the ECB

That the only explanation you could come up with, was in the middle of what can only be described as an extended depression across Europe where banks were winding down lending and customers & businesses not wanting to borrow, shows how disconnected your loon theories of how the system works really are. You actually don't look at what's going on in the world around you to check that your interpretation of the world through your theories matches up to what is going on in reality. You don't care about validating your theories by reference to real world events. You live in a closed off environment where you merely make up what is happening in the world to fit in with and be consistent with your fuckwitted theories

Anyone with even a smidgen of understanding as to what is going on around them would never in a million years suggest that new lending of thirty trillion euros were made during the middle of the worst downturn since the great depression. That you had to give this answer to keep consistency with your fuck witted theories shows just how fit for purpose they are as explanatory tools to what goes on around us


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You made a mistake in your example, jazzz. You said 'you now have'. That's not right. ' Love detective ltd now has' is what you should have said.


 
Indeed, and the only reason love detective ltd has it, is because the owners of love detective ltd allow the equity to remain within the company

if they didn't, love detective limited wouldn't have those assets anymore

the equity of the business allows for (or funds) the continued existence of those assets in the company


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz - have a look at this page (just an example) and explain to us why they bother with funding at all. https://www.db.com/ir/en/content/funding.htm


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> But if you wish to bizarrely claim that your equity funded your assets, by your creation of the company, then you may be my guest, because - drum roll - _you would be saying that £100,000 has been 'funded' out of thin air._
> 
> __


 
Well, 'Love detective ltd' has been created out of thin air, so this isn't so surprising. And just as with the creation of money, the balance sheet has two sides to it.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective limited might have been created out of thin air (well through legal documentation and incorporation) - but that in itself is just a shell entity with nothing in it

the activity which resulted in the eventual assets & equity of the love detective limited however weren't created out of thin air


----------



## Idaho (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You aren't going to fully understand money creation by reading love-detective posts.
> 
> The extraordinary thing is that in these threads I back up my position by several quotes from economists who really know their stuff. I can't recall love-detective ever quoting anyone.
> 
> ...


This is called "the argument from authority". It's a logical fallacy. Just because someone has impressive sounding credentials doesn't give extra weight to their argument.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> love detective limited might have been created out of thin air (well through legal documentation and incorporation) - but that in itself is just a shell entity with nothing in it
> 
> the activity which resulted in the eventual assets & equity of the love detective limited however weren't created out of thin air


 
I suspect that Jazz will only accept the existence of tangible assets obtained by the barter of precious metals or gemstones.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I suspect that Jazz will only accept the existence of tangible assets obtained by the barter of precious metals or gemstones.


 
what like purple gold as fashioned by his bezzie mate the Jew hater Nick Kollerstrom?

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/kollerstrom_purple_gold.html


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what like purple gold as fashioned by his bezzie mate the Jew hater Nick Kollerstrom?
> 
> http://www.levity.com/alchemy/kollerstrom_purple_gold.html


That's why they do it, y'see. There's not enough gold to bring global economy back to full reserve banking, so they have to invent it. And they might as well make it a pretty colour to differentiate it from your common or garden gold. Keeps the likes of Kollerstrom gainfully employed.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

It's worth pointing out at this stage what a massive and conscious derailment Jazz is engineering from the original point

He's taken refuge in a long drawn out but 'safe' cul-de-sac argument over what the 'equity' of a business is, whether it should be considered a liability and so on

The original point that started this off however is my correct point that the liabilities of a business fund (or allow for the existence) of the assets of that business

The equity component of any bank's balance sheet is a tiny fraction of its overall assets, so it's really an immaterial discussion in this context as to whether equity should be viewed as a liability of a company (for the record though it should, and is, viewed as a liability, but in the context of a discussion on bank's it's pretty much irrelevant given how small it is)

To take us back to the origina point - here is the summarised balance sheet of Norther Rock again


The liabilities (which include the equity component, which as pointed out is a tiny amount anyway) are all different categories and types of funding that fund and allow for the continued existence of the assets of the company. Even smaller non market funding type liabilities like tax liabilities, property cost liabilities, wages due etc.. are things which allow short term funding for the company. As to the extent that a company has not paid off a liability, they can use the liquid assets that they would have used to pay them for other purposes (or the continued existence of those liabilities allow the company to avoid having to find the liquid resources to pay them at that point in time). So even these play a role in the funding of a business

I've asked Jazz countless times why companies take on this funding and the liabilities associated with them if, according to him, they do not need them. He's never once even attempted to answer that question. Truxta has asked the same question again just now and I can guarantee that it will be impossible for Jazz to answer this question correctly without contradicting his previous nonsense.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

If nothing else love detective, you've reminded us all (cept Jazzz of course) of the fundamentals, can't really hurt. Cheers guv.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

Must be really frustrating though to know that you have jazzz trapped but that he's too dim to realise it and won't attempt to answer the question and so snap the trap shut.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Must be really frustrating though to know that you have jazzz trapped but that he's too dim to realise it and won't attempt to answer the question and so snap the trap shut.


Is it dimness tho? It's more like cognitive capture, to coin a poor phrase - he's trapped inside a closed paradigm much like a religious creed.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

I think he's bright enough to realise he's been trapped though, that's why he steadfastly refuses to answer the key questions and hides in the cul de sacs to give the impression (to others who are skim reading) that he's still engaging with the substantive points


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> I think he's bright enough to realise he's been trapped though, that's why he steadfastly refuses to answer the key questions and hides in the cul de sacs to give the impression he's still engaging with the substantive points


I think he realises he's been trapped but has insufficient knowledge to feel confident/able to answer the key questions - knowing that if he does so, he'll flounder. He's learnt this stuff by rote so that's why he can't deviate from it.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

I'm not so sure. He reminds me a lot of religious fundamentalists (of which there are several in my close family) - they simply refuse to engage on the same terms as you do, which allows them (in their own minds) to walk out victorious from a debate that you're sure you've won by appealing to data and common sense.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..

You never see him on any threads talking about real life events as he has no framework in which to interpret the world as it really is - all he can do is wait for the line to be handed down on particular narrow issues then parrot them back - he can't engage on any topics that are not packaged up and delivered to him by the CT community (which fits in with what cesare says as he knows about stuff only to the extent of which they've been packaged up and delivered to him/them rote - if they are tested too vigoursly his 'pack' doesn't have the tools do deal with it)

And he's never a bad word to be said about wage-labour


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..
> 
> You never see him on any threads talking about real life events as he has no framework in which to interpret the world as it really is - all he can do is wait for the line to be handed down on particular narrow issues then parrot them back - he can't engage on any topics that are not packaged up and delivered to him by the CT community (which fits in with what cesare says as he knows about stuff only to the extent of which they've been packaged up and delivered to him/them rote - if they are tested too vigoursly his 'pack' doesn't have the tools do deal with it)
> 
> And he's never a bad word to be said about wage-labour


 
Whenever I've (or you or butchers or anyone) has ever mentioned class or capitalism or labour to him he's just completely ignored it


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..
> 
> You never see him on any threads talking about real life events as he has no framework in which to interpret the world as it really is - all he can do is wait for the line to be handed down on particular narrow issues then parrot them back - he can't engage on any topics that are not packaged up and delivered to him by the CT community (which fits in with what cesare says as he knows about stuff only to the extent of which they've been packaged up and delivered to him/them rote - if they are tested too vigoursly his 'pack' doesn't have the tools do deal with it)
> 
> And he's never a bad word to be said about wage-labour


 
There's much safety/security to be had within a tightly defined ideological structure - especially if you're a person that also finds safety in detail rather than conceptual thinking. I could also speculate about confidence/self esteem expressed in other ways e.g. engaging with the social world via the medium of puppetry, together with more than average talent in certain areas eg piano playing and chess.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)




----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's much safety/security to be had within a tightly defined ideological structure - especially if you're a person that also finds safety in detail rather than conceptual thinking. I could also speculate about confidence/self esteem expressed in other ways e.g. engaging with the social world via the medium of puppetry, together with more than average talent in certain areas eg piano playing and chess.


 
to be fair i reckon lots of people on here have got a "tightly defined ideological structure" thing is tho most people are able to adjust their theories to fit reality rather than adjust reality to fit their theories


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..


 
Jazzz isn't against immunisations as single measures which could be improved or refined (something many might agree with) more against the whole concept of vaccination:



> The point is, most doctors will happily believe vaccines are the miracle they are continually portrayed as - they have spent years been indoctrinate to believe exactly that, and like all good cult members they are kept extremely busy. ... Perhaps a much better persuader is the enormous bonuses they receive for meeting targets. They will of course know full well that the vaccination paradigm cannot be questioned - god, even Wakefield has never done that! Because the rest of the pack will eat them alive otherwise. So they don't!


 
Jazzz often equates antifascism with fascism:



Jazzz said:


> Really, what is this? A rabble summoned to violently attack NF members with bottles?
> I can't believe this is applauded on these boards. You think this is 'antifascism', it's nothing of the sort. It's the suppression of opinion by force which is precisely fascism.
> If there was a group of football hooligans coming to town, what would a group entitled 'anti-football hooligans' composed of men with bottles that went out cruising for them be?
> There is really no difference. Really.


 
and stating that capitalists no longer care about any threat of Marxism or expropriation:



Jazzz said:


> _There are precious few people who really know what is going on_. They control us by _getting us to control ourselves_. And such covert control can carry on as long as it remains undiscovered, which it has been doing for, well, at least as long as there have been pyramids on The Earth.
> 
> The people at the top - the ones who know what is happening - are the 'raised capstone' of the pyramid. That is why they love the symbol of the pyramid with raised capstone, with the 'all-seeing-eye'. If you've never looked at a dollar bill and asked yourself what that freaky shit is doing on there, you should start.
> 
> ...


 
Jazzz is a capitalist Democrat you get as much sense as you would from a capitalist Democrat:



Jazzz said:


> Firstly let me say that the Jesus reference was a touch light-hearted - I'm not sure I believe the guy ever existed, although many do and I wouldn't hold it against them.
> 
> The banking scam should not be associated with capitalism, though they would love you to think so. You can have capitalism without central banks and you can have central banks and all their scams without capitalism. The whole capitalism/communism thing is the most fantastic distracting sideshow.
> 
> Look at what JFK was doing shortly before he was assassinated. He was pulling the rug out from the central bank scam by issuing interest-free money. Was he about to plunge the USA into communism? I don't think so. He was simply stripping the Federal Reserve - a private company - of its parasitic, bloodsucking grip on the citizens of the US. One must not underestimate the implications of what he was doing.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

just, wow


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

wire-pullers


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

That last one on sihhi's list is astonishing. And i thought jazzz had lost the power to amaze me.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair i reckon lots of people on here have got a "tightly defined ideological structure" thing is tho most people are able to adjust their theories to fit reality rather than adjust reality to fit their theories


 
Aye. Some people struggle with abstract thinking and social skills, which can manifest in some of the behaviours I was highlighting even at a high functioning level.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

although having no social skills is not a barrier to meaningful abstract thinking, it's almost a prerequisite is it not!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You aren't going to fully understand money creation by reading love-detective posts.
> 
> The extraordinary thing is that in these threads I back up my position by several quotes from economists who really know their stuff. I can't recall love-detective ever quoting anyone.
> 
> ...


 
I have got back to you on it. And despite your context-free quote she does _not _agree with you. Always best to actually read these things rather than skim them in an attempt to find a quote mine you think supports your argument without bothering to get your head around the over-arching arguments the piece is putting over.

And you may have trouble finding an economist saying assets fund liabilities for the same reason as you'd have trouble finding a physicist saying everything is made out of stuff. It's assumed that readers will already know this.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 5, 2013)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm


> To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority.  The _Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933_ (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The _Silver Purchase Act of 1934_ (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations.  Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
> As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2
> To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with _Public Law 88-36_.  Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
> Secretary.2
> ...


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> although having no social skills is not a barrier to meaningful abstract thinking, it's almost a prerequisite is it not!


He has got social skills but I don't think he necessarily finds it easy.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> although having no social skills is not a barrier to meaningful abstract thinking, it's almost a prerequisite is it not!


Speak for yourself!


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Speak for yourself!


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on

Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Aye. Some people struggle with abstract thinking and social skills, which can manifest in some of the behaviours I was highlighting even at a high functioning level.


 
i can be a bit like that sometimes to be fair, i reckon a lot of people on here probably can. i suppose the difference is that people are aware of it and can therefore _try_ and do something about it (although they might not succeed, i fucking havent lol). 

i don't think the problem with these types of views is just because of people holding them having crap social skills, (not saying your saying it is mind) people can be very charming etc and manage somehow to be complete cunts.

i think theres sometimes a risk of writing these people off as loons and then underestimating the sort of influence these types of views can have. they might not necessasrily be "racists" or bad people. I've met quite a few people going on about this stuff, to the extent its starting to alarm me quite a bit because of the fact that it is so linked to anti-semitism. From my experience many are around my age and seem to have mental health problems but then you need to be asking why and how it is that these explanations start to look attractive if you have good reason to be paranoid and to be against the system etc. Something like what sihhi was talking about earlier in the thread

I dont have many answers, I do find it very worrying though and i think it's useful to point out the nazi/anti-semitic links and then try and counter peoples arguments or just ask them "have you thought about it this way" and then go on to talk about wage labour and work etc, most of of the time they will agree with you if they're not that deep into it.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to the concrete upon which most social skills are based on


I don't think that's true. It might be the case that people who are attracted to very abstract thinking are less sociable, but that's a selection effect and not really anything to do with the concrete lived effects of abstract thinking per se. IME.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

but why do people who are attracted to very abstract thinking self select to be less sociable in the first place? I think it's a trade off that they either consciously or sub consciously make - to do one thing makes them less effective at the other

obviously there are numerous exceptions but I think there is something to this


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> but why do people who are attracted to very abstract thinking self select to be less sociable in the first place?


That's not what I said was it? The selection is for abstract thinking, not lower social skills/desire to be sociable. I think.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> but why do people who are attracted to very abstract thinking self select to be less sociable in the first place? I think it's a trade off that they either consciously or sub consciously make - to do one thing makes them less effective at the other
> 
> obviously there are exceptions but I think there is something to this


Besides, you're pretty good at this abstract thinking yourself, you have a wife and kids. Are you saying you're the exception to this rule?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

social skills can often be quite subjective things tho, i mean not everyone likes a person with "good social skills" ... look at penny in the big bang theory totally not fitting in at all with the people she wants to be mates with lol


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That's not what I said was it? The selection is for abstract thinking, not lower social skills/desire to be sociable. I think.


well i'm not saying people decide to have less social skills or a desire to be less sociable - but it's a necessary by product of indulging in activities that take you away from the concrete for sustained periods of time


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

definitely something in it, the times wheni havent been involved in political stuff very deeply have often been the times when ive gone out more, had more of a social life, been a lot more confident and self-assured etc

obviously i still had my views on things but you know


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Besides, you're pretty good at this abstract thinking yourself, you have a wife and kids. Are you saying you're the exception to this rule?


 
I find abstract thinking quite challenging to be honest and i've also got shit social skills - so I lose on both counts


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> well i'm not saying people decide to have less social skills or a desire to be less sociable - but it's a necessary by product of indulging in activities that take you away from the concrete for sustained periods of time


Ah. I still dunno if I agree tho - I think any prolonged solitary activity will make you a bit zoned out socially, whether it's conspiraloonery, playing the guitar or doing sports. Obsessions breed alienations?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> *I find abstract thinking quite challenging* to be honest and i've also got shit social skills - so I lose on both counts


You've had me fooled then.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> I find abstract thinking quite challenging to be honest and i've also got shit social skills - so I lose on both counts


 
At least you're aware of it though!


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on
> 
> Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example


 
I think much of it depends on the extent and the focus. For example, you can think along abstract lines but keep an overall context in mind when developing your thought - a practical application. That type of abstract thinking isn't particularly at odds with interacting easily with the world around you. Or you can be prone to thinking of an idea then developing incredibly detailed bottom up justifications to the exclusion of all else - which can leave you isolated in your focus on that particular theory/set of theories.


----------



## fogbat (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on
> 
> Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example


I'm not sure that it's fair to compare a laughable comedy character with anyone from The Big Bang Theory.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I think much of it depends on the extent and the focus. For example, you can think along abstract lines but keep an overall context in mind when developing your thought - a practical application. That type of abstract thinking isn't particularly at odds with interacting easily with the world around you. Or you can be prone to thinking of an idea then developing incredibly detailed bottom up justifications to the exclusion of all else - which can leave you isolated in your focus on that particular theory/set of theories.


 
"shit social skills" are so subjective to be fair and depends entirely on the people you know ... well to a large extent anyway or i wouldn't be so crap at them from any direction


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> "shit social skills" are so subjective to be fair and depends entirely on the people you know ... well to a large extent anyway or i wouldn't be so crap at them from any direction


I'm betting it's possible to identify a set of behaviours around "social skills" that are transferable between different social groups though.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

i dunno i reckon a convention of star treks geeks might have slightly different ideas about what social skills were than a group of mates from your work going down the pub lol

could be wrong though!


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm betting it's possible to identify a set of behaviours around "social skills" that are transferable between different social groups though.


That's what social skills are (to a large extent) - transactional skills rather than substantive knowledge about the mores of a particular social group.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i dunno i reckon a convention of star treks geeks might have slightly different ideas about what social skills were than a group of mates from your work going down the pub lol
> 
> could be wrong though!


When I said "behaviours" I wasn't referring to whether or not they're prone to dressing up in space uniform


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

there'd be some common ground tho, like hygiene etc
at least you'd hope so


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> That's what social skills are (to a large extent) - transactional skills rather than substantive knowledge about the mores of a particular social group.


Exactly. You can be sociable without even knowing the language being spoken.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

What about Marx then? Pretty good at the abstract stuff, loved nothing better than a good night down the boozer with his mates.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there'd be some common ground tho, like hygiene etc
> at least you'd hope so


Hygiene's a good one! Even though crusty lifestylists pretend otherwise.

Eye contact (but not too much)
Smiling
Non threatening demeanour including not standing too close/far away
Enough knowledge of day to day goings on to keep up a conversation
Listening skills so that if you don't know the subject, at least you can ask meaningful questions

Etc


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What about Marx then? Pretty good at the abstract stuff, loved nothing better than a good night down the boozer with his mates.


Good communicator etc


----------



## TruXta (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What about Marx then? Pretty good at the abstract stuff, loved nothing better than a good night down the boozer with his mates.


And he shagged around.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 5, 2013)

love detective said:


> What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..


 

Jazzz is also clued in on _American politics_ beyond 9/11 such as Obama:



Jazzz said:


> Obama's long-form released birth certicate is a blatant forgery, and has been completely exposed as such.


and John Kennedy "No Blood" at Oswald shooting claims photographer
Jazzz also analyses _geography_:




Jazzz said:


> The union jack represents a pyramid as viewed from above. This is why the UK is just not going to let Northern Ireland go: it is the fourth side of the pyramid! You will observe that the first letter of each country represents a point of the compass,*E*ngland, *S*cotland, *W*ales, *N*orthern Ireland  coincidence?


 



Jazzz said:


> No, I seriously maintain that that is no coincidence.
> 
> Probability it would happen randomly:
> P = (2 * 4!) / 26 ^ 4
> = 1 in 9520





Jazzz said:


> Grandmasters of lodges are mere footsoldiers in this. You would have to be a 33rd degree freemason to even realise that there might be some funny business going on. The running of the world happens in levels above that.


 


Jazzz said:


> "Ordo ab Chao" is their motto Crispy.
> 
> It's pretty clever. It's kind of like 'divide and rule' but deeper than that. You can think of them like the house of the casino running the poker game. They set the rules and set up the game so that they always win. It's "managed chaos". George Orwell understood this when he wrote 1984, and always had the continents at war with each other on rotation.


 





Jazzz said:


> This is why the thing is a tiered structure. On the lower levels, you will have your masonic graphic designers, such as Wolff Olins.


 

More Conspiracism to erase the difference between fascism and anti-fascism - defending David Icke as not racist. 




> Icke is not racist; he expresses love for all humans (even the ones that need rockets up their arses). Having a go at the Talmud and other religious doctrines does not make him racist.
> 
> ...
> 
> When I heard him speak at Battersea, a seven-hour lecture, he didn't mention the word 'Jew' once! An extraordinary feat for someone attempting to whip up anti-semitic hatred!


 


> Out of the millions of words that Icke has written, there is not a racist one. It's that simple.


 


> when Icke says lizard he means... lizard. His theory is that the world is run by some 13 bloodlines and what races they may be held to be part of (they vary) is neither here nor there. He holds the mass of Jewish people to be a victim of this conspiracy, just as all the other races. He is not racist at all, quite the opposite, and you will be sure of that should you hear him.


 
This is what Jazzz used to defend Icke from antisemitism charges 


> He really does believe the lizard shit. Or did - I have wondered if he might have realised he went off a bit too far, lizards didn't get much of a mention in his last talk. He is not the tool of anti-semites. He speaks out against racism in all forms and eloquently so.
> I'd like to mention that guilt by association is the prime weapon of the fascist, and there really is the nature of a witch-hunt to all this 'he's one of them' nonsense. In a newsletter not so long ago Icke went on about how not only the BNP and supporters but much of the anti-nazi crowd are caught up in exactly the same hate vibration. I've just pulled up that newsletter: here's what he had to say  ...
> 
> 
> ...


Jazzz didn't link to Icke's actual newsletter some of it here:



> So we return to the immigration issue and what is happening today. The biggest block on the global acceptance of the 'One World' government structure is the sense of nationhood and country. While there are still strongly-held perceptions and definitions of nation and country any attempt to introduce a centrally-controlled global structure will meet with significant resistance.One major way of breaking this down over the generations is to have an influx of people from other cultures, so the native one loses its unchallenged status as the prime blueprint for what constitutes being 'British' or 'German' or wherever. Gradually, what being 'British' actually means becomes blurred in the melting pot of competing cultures until they pretty much merge into a cocktail that defies definition.Such an indefinable perception of 'nation' is far more open to conceding power to the One World structure than someone who wants to protect the sovereignty of his or her nation state.
> 
> I saw a newspaper poll asking readers to define what constitutes being 'British' and the best many could come up with was fish and chips, a 'fry-up' breakfast, and afternoon tea. The definition of 'British' is already losing clarity amid the clamour for 'multiculturalism'.





> polarisation and name-calling obscures, on purpose, the deeper meaning behind immigration policies. It is not about this race or that race, this culture or that culture. It is about creating ONE culture, a global uniformity that disconnects people from an association with nation and uniqueness so they accept the loss of nationhood to the global Orwellian state.The current assault on Islam is part of this. I am not a Muslim and I don't agree with much of what it says, but that is irrelevant to the point, just as 'racism' is irrelevant to the real agenda behind immigration policies.


What's driving these real agendas - it's the 13 Illuminati bloodlines (possibly transfused with extraterrestrial contact thousands of years ago)


> The Illuminati want a global Nazi state controlling a microchipped slave population. Crucial to that is making people financially dependent on their controllers - the government and the corporations directed by the same force.





> Put simply, Nick Griffin, and the'anti-fascists' who oppose the BNP, are two poles in the same game and essential to each other from the Illuminati perspective.
> Polarisation = Controllerisation.
> 
> Across the world, the immigration controversy is now a familiar theme. ... So what's going here? There are two main reasons - both of enormous benefit to the Illuminati who are the force ultimately behind the immigration 'crisis': (1) DESTROY THE NATION STATE ...
> Look around the world - it's happening every day and the process has been unfolding for decades, indeed hundreds of years.This is what the Illuminati have been working towards. ... under that edifice of centralised global power would be four 'superstates' in the mould of the *European Union, the fascist dictatorship* that now imposes its will on an ever-greater swathe of Western and Eastern Europe. What we today call 'nation states' would have virtually no power whatsoever. They would belittle more than local councils administering the dictates from above. And this is the point. For this world government and Orwellian state to be a reality, identification with country and nation has to go. Cultural diversity is the enemy of global uniformity.





> I do love England because it is familiar to me and I feel at home here. But that's familiarity, DNA program synchronisation with this energy field called 'England' or 'Britain'. I don't see it as 'superior' to other cultures, in fact in many ways it is certainly not, but I am comfortable living here, that's all, and I celebrate the diversity of program - culture - elsewhere on the planet. I would not want the whole world to be like England, or anywhere else. We should glory in diversity.Trouble is, when you start to point out the hidden agenda behind 'multiculturalism', you are immediately tagged with the 'r' word - racist.


Not a word of this is racist according to Jazzz. Many of those posting on this thread are Illuminati (real fascist) dupes given your indifference as to whether Britain as a nation state is destroyed or not.

Re accepting basic reality, google changes indexing for a site - conspiracism at work.


----------



## love detective (Apr 5, 2013)

TruXta said:


> You've had me fooled then.


 
Yeah but finding something challenging or difficult doesn't mean you can't become adequate at it through effort/persistence (especially if you realise the importance of it) - doesn't mean you find it easy or 'natural' to do. I approach abstract thinking in a very concrete/rigid manner for example (although i suppose that is how it should be)

But yes, thinking about it more I should have said (as cesare touched on above) if you have a tendency towards the extremes of either end of the concrete/abstract spectrum then that can result, amongst other things, in shit social skills - but that's starting to just become a banality i guess. But I think a good balance of abstract & concrete thinking leads to better emotional intelligence and sense of self awareness which are probably better drivers of social skills than looking at abstract or concrete thinking alone (although I do think people who tend towards the abstract find it difficult to find the language to express themselves adequately which can be seen as a shit social skill, and this isn't so much the case the other way round where there is a tendency towards the concrete where there's less of a gap between the thinking and the language used to express them)


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

> The Illuminati want a global Nazi state controlling a microchipped slave population. Crucial to that is making people financially dependent on their controllers - the government and the corporations directed by the same force.


They don't know what nazism is.​


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

Just have time for one post right now.



SpineyNorman said:


> I have got back to you on it. And despite your context-free quote she does not agree with you. Always best to actually read these things rather than skim them in an attempt to find a quote mine you think supports your argument without bothering to get your head around the over-arching arguments the piece is putting over.


Oh I think she does. Please point out where it is that she does not. 





> And you may have trouble finding an economist saying assets fund liabilities for the same reason as you'd have trouble finding a physicist saying everything is made out of stuff. It's assumed that readers will already know this.


*OMG, Hallelujah.* That makes sense, doesn't it? Assets generally do fund liabilities. How else are you going to pay for them? I can't say I have a problem with that. Things that you owe get settled from things you have.

_'Liabilities funding assets'_ though, as LD claims, that is just plain bonkers, as I pointed out earlier.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

*THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES*​​*Hans Christian Andersen*​ 
Many years ago, there was an Emperor, who was so excessively fond of new clothes, that he spent all his money in dress. He did not trouble himself in the least about his soldiers; nor did he care to go either to the theatre or the chase, except for the opportunities then afforded him for displaying his new clothes. He had a different suit for each hour of the day; and as of any other king or emperor , one is accustomed to say, "he is sitting in council," it was always said of him, "The Emperor is sitting in his wardrobe."

Time passed merrily in the large town which was his capital; strangers arrived every day at the court. One day, two rogues, calling themselves weavers, made their appearance. They gave out that they knew how to weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns, the clothes manufactured from which should have the wonderful property of remaining invisible to everyone who was unfit for the office he held, or who was extraordinarily simple in character.

"These must, indeed, be splendid clothes!" thought the Emperor. "Had I such a suit, I might at once find out what men in my realms are unfit for their office, and also be able to distinguish the wise from the foolish! This stuff must be woven for me immediately." And he caused large sums of money to be given to both the weavers in order that they might begin their work directly.

(cont.)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 5, 2013)

Oh for fucks sake.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2013)

I really am going to have to resist the temptation to click 'show ignored posts' in future.

I'm not going to trawl through that paper to find the parts that contradict your insane world view because frankly I've got more important things to fucking worry about than spoonfeeding you information that you'll only ignore anyway.

And can I assume then that when you posted this:



Jazzz said:


> I eagerly await anyone to find any quote from any serious economist to say echo love-detective's bizarre comment that "assets are funded by liabilities". Because that is nonsense, and it's come about because LD has had to adjust his position because he has had to make it up as he goes along.


 
You actually meant this?



Jazzz said:


> I eagerly await anyone to find any quote from any serious economist [like, for example, Henry fucking ford?] to say[sic] echo love detective's perfectly reasonable and indisputably correct assertion that 'assets are funded by liabilities' because although it's completely true I'm going to keep making idiotic requests to back up information any informed poster is already aware of in the hopes that people get bored of wasting their time banging their heads against a fucking wall and go away, allowing me to claim victory on account of getting the last word in


 


Jazzz said:


> I don't get it.


 
At last, something upon which I'm sure we can all agree.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> *THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES*​​*Hans Christian Andersen*​
> Many years ago, there was an Emperor, who was so excessively fond of new clothes, that he spent all his money in dress. He did not trouble himself in the least about his soldiers; nor did he care to go either to the theatre or the chase, except for the opportunities then afforded him for displaying his new clothes. He had a different suit for each hour of the day; and as of any other king or emperor , one is accustomed to say, "he is sitting in council," it was always said of him, "The Emperor is sitting in his wardrobe."
> 
> Time passed merrily in the large town which was his capital; strangers arrived every day at the court. One day, two rogues, calling themselves weavers, made their appearance. They gave out that they knew how to weave stuffs of the most beautiful colors and elaborate patterns, the clothes manufactured from which should have the wonderful property of remaining invisible to everyone who was unfit for the office he held, or who was extraordinarily simple in character.
> ...


 
I find it hard to understand why someone who is so impressed by the antisemitic emperor's new clothes, so much so that he comes on messageboards that are hostile to the emperor's tailor and his wares in order to extoll their twoofy virtues, would want to go around posting that.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I really am going to have to resist the temptation to click 'show ignored posts' in future.
> 
> I'm not going to trawl through that paper to find the parts that contradict your insane world view because frankly I've got more important things to fucking worry about than spoonfeeding you information that you'll only ignore anyway.
> 
> And can I assume then that when you posted this:


 
OMG, are you for real?   

Surely you can understand that

"assets are funded by liabilities" is equivalent to "liabilities fund assets"
(love-detective)

whereas

"assets fund liabilities" has the subject and object the other way around?
(SpineyNorman)

I know money creation is highly confusing, but this is ridiculous.

_"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"_
*Abraham Lincoln*

ps I don't like quotes made up/messed around with


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

It's both, though, Jazzz.

The assets fund the liabilities in a direct way - those lending to the banks need to see evidence of assets before they will lend.

The liabilities fund the assets in a slightly different way - in that the banks are legally obliged to submit books that show a balance, that show that they have not been making loans without backing those loans up with equivalent liabilities, which would legally be fraud, I believe. In theory, a bank could just make the loans without backing them up - if they weren't accountable to external authorities - effectively only expanding one side of the balance sheet. But they are accountable to external authorities. And tbh, it is that external accountability that gives their loans credence - nobody would believe in currency that had been unfunded, it would lead to collapse in confidence rather quickly, because it would not matter one jot to the bank if the loan were not repaid. That's why, while it can be instructive to think of the banking system as one big bank to see certain aspects of its dynamics (to the system as a whole, it doesn't matter if a loan isn't repaid), it is imperative to look at the situation of the individual banks within that system to see how things actually work, and what those individual banks can and can't do (to the individual bank, it matters rather a lot that the loan should be repaid).

The one thing banks are not required to do is to fund their assets with liabilities of the same time frame - they can borrow from me for one week and lend to you for one year, quite legally, and then refinance that year-long loan by borrowing from me for another week. Etc. That's the banks' business. That's where their margin lies.

But liabilities fund assets. That really is the case.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You aren't going to fully understand money creation by reading love-detective posts.
> 
> The extraordinary thing is that in these threads I back up my position by several quotes from economists who really know their stuff. I can't recall love-detective ever quoting anyone.
> 
> ...


I'm skimming this thread because I still haven't got through all the homework love detective and SpineyNorman set me in the more advanced modules  and I haven't got time to check this one thoroughly, but I'm not sure Pettifor is making the argument you think she is making here, Jazzz. I _think_ the title refers to their ability to create fictional capital (if I am using that term correctly) through, for example valuing stocks compared to each other (rather than with reference to the fundamentals underlying value, aka "ketchup economics") and the conflict of interests amongst the ratings agencies which means complex instruments are essentially rated according to the wishes of the client rather than by reference to their true 'value' to the purchaser.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's both, though, Jazzz.
> 
> The assets fund the liabilities in a direct way - those lending to the banks need to see evidence of assets before they will lend.
> 
> The liabilities fund the assets in a slightly different way - in that the banks are legally obliged to submit books that show a balance, that show that they have not been making loans without backing those loans up with equivalent liabilities, which would legally be fraud, I believe. In theory, a bank could just make the loans without backing them up - if they weren't accountable to external authorities - effectively only expanding one side of the balance sheet. But they are accountable to external authorities. And tbh, it is that external accountability that gives their loans credence - nobody would believe in currency that had been unfunded, it would lead to collapse in confidence rather quickly, because it would not matter one jot to the bank if the loan were not repaid. That's why, while it can be instructive to think of the banking system as one big bank to see certain aspects of its dynamics (to the system as a whole, it doesn't matter if a loan isn't repaid), it is imperative to look at the situation of the individual banks within that system to see how things actually work, and what those individual banks can and can't do (to the individual bank, it matters rather a lot that the loan should be repaid).


 
Bit confused here again. This is why I am only concerned with the basics, what actually happens when a bank makes a loan? This is the crux of the matter, and there's really not point much attempting to get onto anything else while there is disagreement over this.

When a bank makes a loan, it expands both sides of its balance sheet (as I've quoted Paul Tucker, and Modern Money Mechanics (FRB Chicago).

Most importantly, it credits the borrower's bank account. As I have previously explained, it's not actually 'your' account, it is the bank's (liability) account. THIS IS THE MONEY. The way most of our money exists in circulation is in the form of digits in our bank accounts, and we 'pay' people by shuffling bank liability. Bank transfers shuffle it between banks and customers, and at the higher part of the tree, the banks with the Bank of England. Of course, cash transactions shuffle liability with the Bank of England as that is what the notes represent.

So I don't understand what you mean when you say that loans have to backed up with equivalent liabilities. The liability IS the loan. The bank MUST record it as such, as otherwise how will they know to give you cash when you want to take it out?

On the asset side of the equation, if the bank doesn't record the asset (reflecting your promise to repay the loan) then they are giving away the loan. They COULD do that, but they are not in the business of giving away their wealth, of course they would not last very long doing that.

So when loans are paid back effectively the reverse process happens - the balance sheets contract, except the interest means the bank are better off than when they started.

So given that banks create money out of nothing by simply expanding both sides of the balance sheet (just playing around with numbers!) what is it that 'backs' the loans? Well as I am so much at pains to point out, they only need a fraction of cash reserves at any time to meet their demand liabilities. In fact, as things currently stand, they don't even need that. We have no reserve requirement here in the UK.



> *United Kingdom*
> The Bank of England holds to a voluntary reserve ratio system, with no minimum reserve requirement set. In theory this means that banks could retain zero reserves, effectively allowing an infinite amount of credit money creation. However, the average cash reserve ratio across the entire United Kingdom banking system is higher, with a 3.1% average as of 1998.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement



> The one thing banks are not required to do is to fund their assets with liabilities of the same time frame - they can borrow from me for one week and lend to you for one year, quite legally, and then refinance that year-long loan by borrowing from me for another week. Etc. That's the banks' business. That's where their margin lies.


I do wish to get away from this idea that banks are acting as intermediaries between savers and borrowers. I try to accommodate it but I don't think that anyone can really get their heads around the thing with it.

From Ann Pettifor's link, concerning Schumpeter (1883-1950)



> _“financial reservoirs …collecting together little pools of savings for lending on. (He) and others saw that capitalist banks produced new money by the act of lending, in the sense that the deposits that were created when money was advanced to a borrower were not taken from existing savings or matched by incoming deposits. Money was produced simply by the debt contract between banks and borrowers. Schumpeter clearly grasped that the essential capitalist practice was the actual ‘production’ of bank credit-money out of nothing more than the promise of repayment.” (ibid. p 39).(My emphasis)._


 
All the bank needs to do to 'back up their loans' is hold enough in cash reserves so that the fraction (amount withdrawn from cash reserves - amount introduced to cash reserves) is expected to be covered over any time frame.



> But liabilities fund assets. That really is the case.


I wouldn't say that. Liabilities are debts, assets are the things you have. I also think that we need strict definitions.

But let's seek to agree in case that we can.

You can pay for things by _decreasing_ an asset
You can pay for things by _increasing_ a liability

Perhaps we can agree on that.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm skimming this thread because I still haven't got through all the homework love detective and SpineyNorman set me in the more advanced modules  and I haven't got time to check this one thoroughly, but I'm not sure Pettifor is making the argument you think she is making here, Jazzz. I _think_ the title refers to their ability to create fictional capital (if I am using that term correctly) through, for example valuing stocks compared to each other (rather than with reference to the fundamentals underlying value, aka "ketchup economics") and the conflict of interests amongst the ratings agencies which means complex instruments are essentially rated according to the wishes of the client rather than by reference to their true 'value' to the purchaser.


What quotes give you that impression?


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

I've not got time to read the whole thing at the moment Jazzz, it's 30 pages long. It's 30 pages long because there is 26 pages worth of exposition for her argument. I've come across her being a bit odd at times, but I didn't have her pegged as one of the gold standard nuts, which is why I will do her the courtesy of reading it properly before commenting more. I really don't think it says what you think it says, and if it does it does not lend support to your arguments. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of economists have been getting it wrong for a while now.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"_
> *Abraham Lincoln*


 
I think that's a cue for *everyone* to put him on ignore...


----------



## love detective (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> You can pay for things by _increasing_ a liability


 
This is absolutely correct, yet you don't realise that this is yet another example of the case of liabilities funding assets

An asset is a 'thing' you can acquire by paying for it (for example a house)

You can take on (or increase) a liability in order to be able to pay for it (for example a mortgage)

The mortgage (a liability) funds the ability to buy the house (an asset)

Liabilities fund assets

As you yourself admit in this post:-




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> Liabilities are debts, assets are the things you have


 
Your mortgage is a debt and the house is a thing you have. And the only reason you have the thing that you have is because you have taken on a debt to get it. Liabilities fund assets

It's exactly the same for businesses - the liabilities (and equity if you want to be semantic/pedantic) fund the acquisition and continued existence of the assets of the company. Liabilities fund assets

The liabilities are debts of the business and assets are the things, tangible & intangible, that they own (which are all ultimately funded by the liabilities)


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope. Phil _called_ someone a nazi - jazz just _supported_ nazi stuff.


 
Total outrage man.  Not even Hitler banned people for calling him a Nazi.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

.... and the cunt is back.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Total outrage man.  Not even Hitler banned people for calling him a Nazi.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Bit confused here again. This is why I am only concerned with the basics, what actually happens when a bank makes a loan? This is the crux of the matter, and there's really not point much attempting to get onto anything else while there is disagreement over this.
> 
> When a bank makes a loan, it expands both sides of its balance sheet (as I've quoted Paul Tucker, and Modern Money Mechanics (FRB Chicago).
> 
> ...


 
We are inching towards agreement, but also going around in circles. I agree with the above account. But the following bit isn't correct:



Jazzz said:


> So given that banks create money out of nothing by simply expanding both sides of the balance sheet (just playing around with numbers!) what is it that 'backs' the loans? Well as I am so much at pains to point out, they only need a fraction of cash reserves at any time to meet their demand liabilities. In fact, as things currently stand, they don't even need that. We have no reserve requirement here in the UK.


 
They keep, as you say, around 3 percent of their demand liabilities in the liquid form of cash. But they must also 'back' the other 97 percent, and they do this with the assets. And those assets must be believed to be worth what they are said to be worth - they must be credible loans that give those holding the demand liabilities the confidence not to demand their liabilities back all at once. And this is the bit where we're going in circles, as this is exactly what happened to Northern Rock. This is also where the time difference between assets and liabilities is important - banks must constantly be acquiring new short-term liabilities to fund their long-term assets, and at each point where they seek new liabilities, their assets must be believed to be credible by those lending to them: people must believe that the bank will be able to pay them back. You get this, but don't seem to get its importance to the process.

So, again as has already been said, when the person borrowing the money wants to do something with that money (and given that they're paying interest on it, this moment is invariably 'right away'!), what they are doing is leaving their debt with the bank (the asset - the loan), but withdrawing their demand liability - calling up the liability and demanding that it be paid. As soon as they do that, the bank must replace the money by taking out another liability - in the form of a deposit or a loan from another bank. That's what ld means by 'liabilities fund assets'. And yes, you are right that the loan has also created the deposit within the system (you are right that this process is a process of money creation, and that paying back the loan is a process of money destruction) - but moving that deposit from bank to bank requires the banks to also move money in the opposite direction to cover themselves. That's the bit whose importance to the process you don't seem to get. Without that bit, there is no process - the money just sits there, and money that just sits there isn't really money at all; it's just equal and opposite numbers written down on a piece of paper. For it to become 'money', those numbers need to be separated, so that a different person/institution is providing the liability side of it. Remember that people only take out loans in order to spend the money they get from the loan - that is the only reason anybody ever takes out a loan.

I'll leave you there, I think. You need to get your head around the above before you can go any further with this. You're stuck at the moment. You get each individual bit, I think, but can't quite piece them all together.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> And he shagged around.


 
No he didn't, fool.

Someone who thinks Marx "shagged around" is about as knowledgeable as someone who thinks Calvin "was well into usury."

Oh wait...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2013)

Great. Antisemitic troll is now joined by really fucking tedious and obvious troll.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz isn't a troll.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Jazzz isn't a troll.


Nope. Unlike phil he actually believes everything he posts


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> So given that banks create money out of nothing by simply expanding both sides of the balance sheet (just playing around with numbers!) what is it that 'backs' the loans? Well as I am so much at pains to point out, they only need a fraction of cash reserves at any time to meet their demand liabilities. In fact, as things currently stand, they don't even need that. We have no reserve requirement here in the UK.


 
Exactly.  People have got to move beyond the idea that money has some kind of natural or physical existence. 

This is what I meant when I asked Spiney what he thought it meant to say that money is "in" a certain bank account.  It isn't.  It_ never_ exists anywhere outside the human mind.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm pretty sure there's some money in my wallet right now.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some money in my wallet right now.


That's the tangible symbol of a concept. None the less powerful for that though as anyone without any will find out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

There's nothing mystical about that, though, nothing metaphysical. It's a record of an obligation, that's all - if money is 'in a certain bank account, that's a record of an obligation the bank has committed to wrt the person who deposited the money. It's worth something if it is believed that the obligation will be honoured, worth nothing if it isn't.

It's a measure of value. There is x amount of stuff in the economy, and this stuff's value is abstracted and quantified, allowing people to exchange one thing for a different thing. It's a system of equivalents: £1 equals 5 eggs equals a can of beer equals a litre of milk, etc. And the process by which this system of equivalents is agreed upon is the system of exchange itself - the process of millions and billions of transactions. That number can be written down, recording an obligation (that crucial two sides of the balance sheet), creating a credit and a debit. That's all money is - a record of a credit and a debit of an abstracted, quantified measure of value in which people have sufficient confidence that the credit side of the record can be transferred between people.

I think money is one of those things that people can get into a tangle trying to define, but people understand very well what money is even if they can't define it. A little like the way that people can speak perfectly grammatically without being able to tell you a single rule of grammar.


----------



## yield (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> The power to create money out of thin air - Ann Pettifor





ymu said:


> I've not got time to read the whole thing at the moment Jazzz, it's 30 pages long. It's 30 pages long because there is 26 pages worth of exposition for her argument. I've come across her being a bit odd at times, but I didn't have her pegged as one of the gold standard nuts, which is why I will do her the courtesy of reading it properly before commenting more. I really don't think it says what you think it says, and if it does it does not lend support to your arguments. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of economists have been getting it wrong for a while now.


It's not that good article. Talks a lot about Keynes, Steve Keen and the endogenous creation of money. Stuff that has been covered by love detective and others.

There are some sensible moments. 



> Of course bank clerks demand collateral for the credit, and insist on a contract for repayments over a term and at an agreed rate of interest. While there are physical limits to the number of assets that can be offered as collateral, nevertheless credit creation can be expanded by inflating asset prices – thereby increasing the value of collateral, and with it, the ‘production’ of new loans/debt set against the rising value of the asset.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some money in my wallet right now.


 
Seriously, how stupid is this Scandinavian?

What you have in your pocket is a _symbol _of human activity.  It is not real, it is a symbol.  It has been represented in symbolic form so that it can be separated from the person who performed it, and placed in your pocket.

Is that clear enough for you now Olaf?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Ann Pettifor's link


 
That's an excellent article, thanks.

I'm still a bit puzzled as to why Spiney Norman "liked" it so much, when it argues the precise opposite of what I assume he thinks he's been saying, but it seems that we're going to be left in the dark with regard to that one.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously, how stupid is this Scandinavian?
> 
> What you have in your pocket is a _symbol _of human activity. It is not real, it is a symbol. It has been represented in symbolic form so that it can be separated from the person who performed it, and placed in your pocket.
> 
> Is that clear enough for you now Olaf?


Symbols are real too jackass. I get the type/token distinction and all that, fuck you very much. I suppose you don't believe flags are real either then? Nor pointing fingers? They're only signs and symbols anyway, right? Right? Witchesusurywitches?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Symbols are real too jackass. I get the type/token distinction and all that, fuck you very much. I suppose you don't believe flags are real either then? Nor pointing fingers? They're only signs and symbols anyway, right? Right? Witchesusurywitches?


 
First of all, please control your language. You do yourself no service with this constant stream of obscenity. In fact it makes you look a bit mad.

Secondly, I'm glad you now acknowledge that money is only a symbol. Easy and obvious as it seems, this is a point that 99% of "economists" have yet to grasp, as we have clearly seen here on this very thread.

So having accepted this truth, we are inevitably led to ask these questions: what sort of symbol is it? What sort of symbol _should _it be? And above all: what does it symbolize?

Needless to say, you will not hear any "economists" discussing these questions, for it is the function of their discipline to exclude them. But they are nevertheless the questions we ought to be asking.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> First of all, please control your language. You do yourself no service with this constant stream of obscenity. In fact it makes you look a bit mad.
> 
> Secondly, I'm glad you now acknowledge that money is only a symbol. Easy and obvious as it seems, this is a point that 99% of "economists" have yet to grasp, as we have clearly seen here on this very thread.
> 
> ...


Symbols and any number of real things together make up money. Also, symbols are real. They effect changes to the material, social and mental worlds, doesn't get much more real than that. Dickhead.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, the last person you'd expect to understand money is an accountant.


 
You've inadvertently stumbled upon an important truth here.

No-one who accepts the premises of neo-classical economics can understand the nature of money.  For neo-classical economics is premised on the falsehood that money is naturally efficacious.  That's why Marx calls his theory "a critique of political economy."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

I agree with the Pettifor article. As Steve Keen says in it,



> In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for the reserves later


 
This is indeed crucial to understanding how credit bubbles can form and why actions such as quantitative easing have such a marginal effect. The driver behind the creation of money is demand for loans. The fractional reserve lending and money multiplier models are a fiction. If you look through the numbers Keen crunches on his website, it's a pretty convincing case in my mind that his ideas about the endogenous creation of money - the 'loan-first' model - are essentially correct.

However, as Keen himself says, the banks do have to look for those reserves later. They do need to find the reserves to back the loans to remain solvent. That's not a side-story. It's an essential part of the story.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Symbols and any number of real things together make up money. Also, symbols are real. They effect changes to the material, social and mental worlds, doesn't get much more real than that. Dickhead.


 
Once again, you need to control your abuse.  It serves only to turn people against you.

So symbols are real, you say.  And yet they are clearly different from things, such as chairs or tables.  And they are also different from concepts, such as love or God.

So we have three different levels of reality (not one): things, concepts and symbols.

Once we have all accepted that, we will need to determine the proper relations between these three human realities.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

Do we fuck.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Do we fuck.


 
Some people might find it interesting.  You know, brainy people and them.

Capitalism (and postmodernity in general) is the rule of symbols over both concepts and things.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

Sure it is professor, sure. Have you taken your medicine and changed your nappy yet?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sure it is professor, sure. Have you taken your medicine and changed your nappy yet?


 
Don't rise to him, ye big eejit.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Don't rise to him, ye big eejit.


Just wasting a few minutes whilst waiting for the OH to get ready to leave. It's all rote by now anyway, if anything I'm just mildly amused with that idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

You ask me if I'd like to meet up at The Philosopher's Arms at 9pm and you'll buy me a drink. I say, 'Yes, I'd love to, see you there at 9pm.' You say 'Great, see you there.'

That is an agreement between you and me.

On the basis of the agreement, I turn up at The Philosopher's Arms at 9pm and you buy me a drink.

If your side of the agreement is broken, I turn up at the bar and nobody is there. I'm skint so I can't have a drink. I go home sober.

This agreement has had a real effect. It only exists in our heads. But crucially, it must exist in both heads to be an agreement. The existence of an agreed idea in two heads has led to a particular form of behaviour in both parties. You can't just think 'I'll go to The Philosopher's Arms tonight and buy lbj that drink I owe him' and expect me to be there. You have to tell me first and get me to agree to come.

Money is no different. It may only exist in our heads, but it represents an agreed idea inside more than one person's head. It represents a promise. That promise can only exist if both sides to it agree to what the promise is. And it can be broken, just like any promise. The nature of money is that the symbol represents a promise that can be transferred. That's its job. So money only remains effective for as long as promises are kept, and it is believed that promises will be kept.

What is it about this process that you find so astounding, phil?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You ask me if I'd like to meet up at The Philosopher's Arms at 9pm and you'll buy me a drink. I say, 'Yes, I'd love to, see you there at 9pm.' You say 'Great, see you there.'
> 
> That is an agreement between you and me.
> 
> ...


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_theorem


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Sure it is professor, sure. Have you taken your medicine and changed your nappy yet?


 
It is disturbing to see how any display of erudition, however rudimentary, immediately reduces you to this.  You must find the world an intimidating place.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 6, 2013)

Erudition? From you? That'd be the fucking day.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Erudition? From you? That'd be the fucking day.


 
Anyway, by some process or other, doubtless having nothing at all to do with my arguments, you seem to have happened upon a truth you formerly denied: that money is a symbol.

Since you now accept that money is a symbol, I suppose you will not object if the rest of us discuss that symbol's nature. 

Is it for example a _denotative _or a _performative _symbol_?_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Some people might find it interesting. You know, brainy people and them.
> 
> Capitalism (and postmodernity in general) is the rule of symbols over both concepts and things.


Hmmm.

Problem is that both you and Jazzz think you have understood something deep and important that the rest of us have missed. I think the truth is something far more mundane - that far from not understanding that thing, they understand it full well; they just don't see anything remarkable, deep or important about it.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Problem is that both you and Jazzz think you have understood something deep and important that the rest of us have missed. I think the truth is something far more mundane - that far from not understanding that thing, they understand it full well; they just don't see anything remarkable, deep or important about it.


 
I agree, in the sense that people don't understand the _implications _of what I'm saying.

Those that do either keep quiet about it, since they are the beneficiaries of the entire fraud, or they get killed or put in prison, or (and I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies) they get dismissed as loons by half-educated geeks like Truxta.

For example, we've just seen that Truxta now admits money is a symbol. With a bit of prodding, we could probably get him to admit that this symbol rules the world, dictating the actions of the people whose activity it represents.

But what will be difficult is getting him to see that there is anything _wrong _with a symbol ruling the world. And he can't understand that because he isn't aware of the philosophical objections that have historically been raised to a symbol ruling the world.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What is it about this process that you find so astounding, phil?


 
If you're asking (as I think you are) why I find the process objectionable, I think it's because I see it in historical perspective.  If you can't do that (and it isn't an easy thing to do) then obviously the system is going to seem not just rational, but _natural, _and thus inevitable.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> If you're asking (as I think you are) why I find the process objectionable, I think it's because I see it in historical perspective.  If you can't do that (and it isn't an easy thing to do) then obviously the system is going to seem not just rational, but _natural, _and thus inevitable.


If Jazzz were posting from an anti-Capitalist perspective I doubt we'd have the boring arguments about the minutiae of the process.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2013)

Phil joins Jazzz on both my ignore list and my other List.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

As currently constituted, it's an iniquitous system. But not quite for the reasons you think it is, in my mind. The problem, as ever, is rooted in ownership. Who owns what, and what does that ownership allow the owner to do wrt exploiting others who do not own? In that sense, the banks are simply another aspect of the problem of capitalism. It is the nature of the ownership of the banks that produces the exploitation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Money, in some form or other, is a very useful idea in complex societies. What alternative means of exchange would you suggest should replace it, phil? To be useful, a critique of a system has to include suggested alternatives. Otherwise, it is merely a description.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The problem, as ever, is rooted in ownership.


 
That is exactly what I've been saying.

It would be impossible to transfer ownership of labor away from the person who performs it without representing it in symbolic form.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Money, in some form or other, is a very useful idea in complex societies. What alternative means of exchange would you suggest should replace it, phil? To be useful, a critique of a system has to include suggested alternatives. Otherwise, it is merely a description.


The problem isn't the idea, it's that many people have forgotten/never realised that it's only a useful idea and have made it into a "thing" to be pursued/gathered.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> If Jazzz were posting from an anti-Capitalist perspective I doubt we'd have the boring arguments about the minutiae of the process.


 
I'm not sure I understand.  Jazzz's arguments seem unimpeachibly anti-capitalist to me.

There are plenty of pro-capitalists, or at least anti-anti-capitalists, posting here though.  Remember Pig:



barney_pig said:


> I distrust the term anticapitalist, (not least because it a negative term which Ill describes positivist alternatives to the present society)


 
Closely followed by wild, mad accusations of anti-semitism leveled at those brave enough to criticize capitalism.  Pig's attitude shows what happens when identity politics overwhelms economics in the minds of Leftists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> That is exactly what I've been saying.
> 
> It would be impossible to transfer ownership of labor away from the person who performs it without representing it in symbolic form.


But it is possible to represent the value of a person's labour in symbolic form without exploiting them - specifically, where that person has an equal share of the ownership of the company that is paying them. They may still be exploited - but if they are, that is because the company exists within a system in which either the company itself is exploited, or there are sufficient other companies that do exploit their workers that wages are distorted.

The representation of the value of a person's labour with a monetary value does not in and of itself indicate exploitation. The nature of the wider society and ownership within that society determines that. Indeed, there are plenty of very highly paid people for whom the representation of their labour with money demonstrates the extent to which they are exploiting others.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> The problem isn't the idea, it's that many people have forgotten/never realised that it's only a useful idea and have made it into a "thing" to be pursued/gathered.


 
Yep.  They've _fetishized _it, in other words. 

And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a _subject, _capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.


----------



## ymu (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Problem is that both you and Jazzz think you have understood something deep and important that the rest of us have missed. I think the truth is something far more mundane - that far from not understanding that thing, they understand it full well; they just don't see anything remarkable, deep or important about it.


The only thing Dwyer is thinking is "how in fuck are they stupid enough to still be answering me as if I'm making a serious argument? "

The only thing Jazzz is thinking is "ooh, an argument I can understand that says most people are fools. I am special. "


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not sure I understand. Jazzz's arguments seem unimpeachibly anti-capitalist to me.
> 
> There are plenty of pro-capitalists, or at least anti-anti-capitalists, posting here though. Remember Pig:
> 
> ...


 
no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yep. They've _fetishized _it, in other words.
> 
> And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a _subject, _capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.


There is plenty of wealth to be garnered through manipulating money, but ultimately the value of that money is constrained by the real value of the real things the money represents.

I don't know what you mean by 'independent reproduction' in this sense. Yes, the money supply can be expanded through the creation of fictitious capital, but ultimately, that expansion will crash. In any case, the creation of money is a function of the demand for loans. More promises are created the more there are people willing to be on both sides of the promise.

Money isn't a subject. Money does not control us. Our _desire for money_ may control us, but that's something quite different.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.  They've _fetishized _it, in other words.
> 
> And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a _subject, _capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.


Yes, I agree as you know. But going back to your earlier point, I don't agree that Jazzz's position in unimpeachably anti-Capitalist. It may be in outcome, but the outcome is accidental to what he's doing - which is fetishising money himself.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> no


 
Yes.  What we're seeing here is the rise of the pro-capitalist Left.

People whose thinking is so dominated by identity politics, and so unconcerned with economics, that they can look at a critique of capitalism and _actually see _an anti-semitic diatribe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, I agree as you know. But going back to your earlier point, I don't agree that Jazzz's position in unimpeachably anti-Capitalist. It may be in outcome, but the outcome is accidental to what he's doing - which is fetishising money himself.


I agree with this. It's a good point. Jazzz is very much fetishising money himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Yes. What we're seeing here is the rise of the pro-capitalist Left.
> 
> People whose thinking is so dominated by identity politics, and so unconcerned with economics, that they can look at a critique of capitalism and _actually see _an anti-semitic diatribe.


 
some anti-semitic diatribes are disguised as critiques of capitalism though.

Banking conspiracy theories never _really_ criticise capitalism.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

The essence of capitalism is the relationship between capital and labour. You don't need lizards or rothschilds or usurs or any of that shit. What have they got to say about that relationship? nothing.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> some anti-semitic diatribes are disguised as critiques of capitalism though.
> 
> Banking conspiracy theories never _really_ criticise capitalism.


There's another point to be made here: anti-Capitalism doesn't automatically equal a wish for social justice for all.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

exactly, you only have to look at the likes of lenin and Stalin to know that. And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's another point to be made here: anti-Capitalism doesn't automatically equal a wish for social justice for all.


 
That's right.  Nor does it necessarily mean being a nice person.  And it definitely doesn't preclude racism or sexism.  Unlike identity politics, anti-capitalism is a matter of the head, not of the heart.

I'll return to address the other questions people have raised after I've had my breakfast.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.


Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.


 
yeah, it's definitely worth engaging. but it's still worth pointing out the flaws in these ideas. not criticising you at all.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The essence of capitalism is the relationship between capital and labour. You don't need lizards or rothschilds or usurs or any of that shit. What have they got to say about that relationship? nothing.


 
You don't need a proletariat or a bourgeoisie either.

The logical contradiction is between capital and labor. These forces may sometimes be incarnated in social classes, as they arguably were in the industrialized nations of the C19th. Or they may not--as in our situation today.

Really off for breakfast now.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> exactly, you only have to look at the likes of lenin and Stalin to know that. And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.


You only have to look at the strange bedfellows Occupy attracted to see how anti-Capitalism *only* as an objective, plays out.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You don't need a proletariat or a bourgeoisie either.
> 
> The logical contradiction is between capital and labor. These forces may sometimes be incarnated in social classes, as they arguably were in the industrialized nations of the C19th. Or they may not--as in our situation today.
> 
> Really off for breakfast now.


 
they are the same thing though


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 6, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.


 
Not even that. Look at all the stuff sihhi posted. It's about a fantasy of a kinder, gentler, volksgemeinschaft capitalism that would exist if only the wretched foreigners would stop their interference.

According to this, it's been taken up by Ron Paul's acolytes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.


For the reasons discussed earlier, I think you might be wasting your time trying to change how Jazzz thinks.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Not even that. Look at all the stuff sihhi posted. It's about a fantasy of a kinder, gentler, volksgemeinschaft capitalism that would exist if only the wretched foreigners would stop their interference.
> 
> According to this, it's been taken up by Ron Paul's acolytes:
> 
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve


 
at best.

These theories are basically similar (at best) to the fascist "critique of capitalism" tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> For the reasons discussed earlier, I think you might be wasting your time trying to change how Jazzz thinks.


Perhaps, and I'm going to have to stop with him soon as we're now going round in circles. Perhaps I'll try to end it by picking up on what you said:

Jazzz, both cesare and I think that you are fetishising money in your analysis. Might you stop and consider that we may be right?


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps, and I'm going to have to stop with him soon as we're now going round in circles. Perhaps I'll try to end it by picking up on what you said:
> 
> Jazzz, both cesare and I think that you are fetishising money in your analysis. Might you stop and consider that we may be right?



Why should he? And do we really want him to!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

I don't know. Why should anybody do anything? But asking him to do it can't hurt.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know. Why should anybody do anything? But asking him to do it can't hurt.


Well it's obviously up to you, but I predict that even if he does make you feel better by engaging with you it'll lead into bloody pages of arguing minutiae.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 6, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Not even that. Look at all the stuff sihhi posted. It's about a fantasy of a kinder, gentler, volksgemeinschaft capitalism that would exist if only the wretched foreigners would stop their interference.
> 
> According to this, it's been taken up by Ron Paul's acolytes:
> 
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve


 
Not surprising, the libertarian movement in the US has long courted (and been run by) out and out racists







Also

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...letters-ron-paul-survival-report-jesse-benton
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You don't need a proletariat or a bourgeoisie either.
> 
> The logical contradiction is between capital and labor. These forces may sometimes be incarnated in social classes, as they arguably were in the industrialized nations of the C19th. Or they may not--as in our situation today.
> 
> Really off for breakfast now.


 
You'll need to explain THAT  peculiar claim  in a bit of detail for me Phil ! You say , "These forces MAY  sometimes be incarnated in social classes"   (?)   You most certainly DO need a bourgeoisie and a proletariat for a capitalist system to exist. The classes may very often  not be "class conscious" of their role. But that doesn't alter their historical or social reality --- Marx's  distinction between a "class in itself"  as opposed to the much higher level of self identity ,ie, "a class FOR itself" .  For instance the "bourgeoisie" may be in a historically aberrant form , eg, the collective bureaucratic ruling class  of the Stalinist regimes, but which are actually just a temporary  collective , proxy, bourgeoisie awaiting full conventional bourgeois capitalist restoration.  But "Capital"  still has a social class personification.   Likewise, it doesn't matter what the form of work it  is that "labour" does, from  very indirect value-producing "coupon clipping" (huge numbers of wage workers in the Western economies) , or working in a shopping mall, or making cars,or in a steel mill,  if that activity is a part of the overall value-producing global capitalist process, then the people involved in it are objectively  part of the social class of "proletarians" . Admittedly in the  western advanced economies there are large numbers of proletarians  left in idleness as a no longer needed reserve army of unemployed, but this doesn't alter the fact that without a value producing class of people , working for money wages, , a "proletariat" there is no "capitalism". Doesn't matter whether subjectively at various times most of the entire proletariat is persuaded that it is "middle class" or whatever bogus subjective, lifestyle-led, classification people adopt. The objective historical  reality is Capital versus Labour - and both ALWAYS  have human , social class representatives. The globalised geographic subdivision of the  work process , with the purely localised   illusion of  "Post industrialisation" in the "back office - coupon clipping " advanced states  of world capitalism simply doesn't abolish the class of  " proletarians".  Why do you think otherwise, Phil  ?  The concept of a "post industrial society" which has moved "beyond class struggle" and marxist "social classes"  manifesting the fundamental conflict between Capital and Labour " sounds very like all that dreadful old Cold War 1960's US sociological bollocks by the likes of pro capitalist "Functionalist" ideologues like Talcott Parsons - promoted as a counterpose to Socialist/Marxist social/economic analysis. It was rubbish then, and its certainly rubbish now.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Not surprising, the libertarian movement in the US has long courted (and been run by) out and out racists
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What a loathsome, vile, contemptible person.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 6, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> What a loathsome, vile, contemptible person.


I agree. But, this just what Locke, bentham etc and the people who are the heroes of liberalism argue though. That those who are in a position to have a duty to take land not being 'improved' when the chance to 'improve it' (i,e adopt capitalist relations and agricultural techniques) existed.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I agree. But, this just what Locke, bentham etc and the people who are the heroes of liberalism argue though. That those who are in a position to have a duty to take land not being 'improved' when the chance to 'improve it' (i,e adopt capitalist relations and agricultural techniques) existed.


 
Quite right. There's been debate for years about the nature of property relations in pre-contact America.  From memory, I think some have argued that Indian/Native American groups controlled "ranges" in ways that implied some sort of exclusive ownership. You can be sure that even if that was proven, Rand or Locke or Bentham would move the goalposts. . .


----------



## J Ed (Apr 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I agree. But, this just what Locke, bentham etc and the people who are the heroes of liberalism argue though. That those who are in a position to have a duty to take land not being 'improved' when the chance to 'improve it' (i,e adopt capitalist relations and agricultural techniques) existed.


 
Christopher Hitchens subscribed to this view, as well.

http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/is-only-good-injun-dead-injun.html



> _And in the person of Christopher Hitchens, writing in the Nation, the political left then sounded its voice. To Hitchens, anyone who refused to join him in celebrating "with great vim and gusto" the annihilation of the native peoples of the Americas was (in his words) self-hating, ridiculous, ignorant, and sinister. People who regard critically the genocide that was carried out in America's past, Hitchens continued, are simply reactionary, since such grossly inhuman atrocities "happen to be the way history is made". And thus "to complain about[them] is as empty as complaint about climatic, geological, or tectonic shift". Moreover, he added, such violence is worth glorifying since it more often than not has been for the long-term betterment of humankind - as in the United States today, where the extermination of the Native Americans - the American Indians - has brought about "a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation"._
> _
> One possible exception Hitchens allowed to his vulgar social Darwinism, with its quasi-Hitlerian view of the proper role of power in history, was the Euro-American enslavement of tens of millions of Africans. But even then, Hitchens contended, those centuries of massive brutality only "probably left Africa worse off than they found it". Clearly, however...if it could be shown to Hitchens' personal satisfaction that Africa was in fact "better off" following the enslavement and simultaneous mass killing of 40 million to 60 million of its people, he would celebrate the abominations of the slave trade with the same vim and gusto that he did the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas._
> 
> _These are, of course, precisely the same sort of retrospective justifications for genocide that would have been offered by the descendants of Nazi storm troopers and SS doctors had the Third Reich ultimately had its way; that is, however distasteful the means, the extermination of the Jews was thoroughly warranted given the beneficial ends that were accomplished. In this light it is worth considering again what the reaction would be in Europe and elsewhere if the equivalent of the actual views of Krauthammer and Schlesinger and Hitchens were expressed today by the respectable press in Germany - but with Jews, not Native Americans, as the people whose historical near-extermination was being celebrated. And there is no doubt whatsoever that if that were to happen, alarm bells announcing a frightening and unparalleled postwar resurgence of German neo-Nazism would, quite justifiably, be going off immediately throughout the world._


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well it's obviously up to you, but I predict that even if he does make you feel better by engaging with you it'll lead into bloody pages of arguing minutiae.


Well I do think Jazzz is fetishising money. I also suspect dwyer is doing so too, to the extent that I can understand what he is getting at. It isn't money that rules the world at all. The distribution of money cannot be separated from the wider society that produces the money.

So, I agree with Keen about how money is created, that the loan creates the deposit. This means that money is created in response to demand for money. This bit has to be considered. Who is asking for loans and why? What is it about the wider society that causes them to ask for those loans? You cannot separate off the money system from society and consider it in isolation.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I do think Jazzz is fetishising money. I also suspect dwyer is doing so too, to the extent that I can understand what he is getting at. It isn't money that rules the world at all. The distribution of money cannot be separated from the wider society that produces the money.


 
I don't think either Jazzz or I is fetishizing money. What we are doing is calling attention to the fact that _society_ fetishizes it.

Until quite recently, this fetishization took the traditional form of attributing financial value to a physical substance--gold, for instance, or precious stones, or even banknotes. But today the physical object has disappeared and only the fetish remains.

That does not of course deprive the fetish of its power to alter reality.

I have to go to the shop now. But I will be back soon to answer Ayatollah and others who have raised interesting questions. In the meantime, I suggest that everyone reads "The Diamond As Big As The Ritz" by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who understood the psychological effect of money better than anyone this century:

"By the end of a fortnight he had estimated that the diamond in the mountain was approximately equal in quantity to all the rest of the diamonds known to exist in the world. There was no valuing it by any regular computation, however, for it was _one solid diamond_--and if it were offered for sale not only would the bottom fall out of the market, but also, if the value should vary with its size in the usual arithmetical progression, there would not be enough gold in the world to buy a tenth part of it. And what could any one do with a diamond that size?

It was an amazing predicament. He was, in one sense, the richest man that ever lived--and yet was he worth anything at all? If his secret should transpire there was no telling to what measures the Government might resort in order to prevent a panic, in gold as well as in jewels. They might take over the claim immediately and institute a monopoly.

There was no alternative--he must market his mountain in secret. He sent South for his younger brother and put him in charge of his colored following--darkies who had never realized that slavery was abolished. To make sure of this, he read them a proclamation that he had composed, which announced that General Forrest had reorganized the shattered Southern armies and defeated the North in one pitched battle. The negroes believed him implicitly. They passed a vote declaring it a good thing and held revival services immediately."

http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/diamond/diamond.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Today, the physical object has disappeared, and only the symbol remains. I agree with you that the use of 'valued but useless' things such as jewels and gold actually obscured the purely symbolic nature of money. In that sense, fiat money is far more sensible. It does not hide what it really is behind shiny things.

I don't get the last paragraph of that FSG quote. Is that the authorial voice saying 'darkies'? Like Celine and others from his era, he hasn't aged well.

I agree with you about one thing. When I look at a banknote, it does feel like more than a piece of paper. The purchasing power it represents is a part of what it is. It isn't just a piece of paper in that sense as that purchasing power is a real thing. I'm just about to go to the shops and prove it.

There are other things like this. Certificates for qualifications, for instance, are more than just paper. They can be valued simply for the writing on them and what it represents in the real world.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Today, the physical object has disappeared, and only the symbol remains. I agree with you that the use of 'valued but useless' things such as jewels and gold actually obscured the purely symbolic nature of money. In that sense, fiat money is far more sensible. It does not hide what it really is behind shiny things.
> 
> I don't get the last paragraph of that FSG quote. Is that the authorial voice saying 'darkies'? Like Celine and others from his era, he hasn't aged well.
> 
> ...


 
I've posted this on this thread once before but it's just about the best explanation I've ever seen of the kinds of stuff lbj is getting at here - of money as social power, relating it to value production/abstract labour and explaining it in terms of a commodity fetish/bad abstraction. All the Kapitalism101 videos are great but this one is particularly good, only a couple of 10 minute clips but it helped me get my head around a few things I'd been struggling with.

Part 1:


Part 2:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Apr 6, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> What a loathsome, vile, contemptible person.


 
She died whilst living off the state. Ironic.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't get the last paragraph of that FSG quote. Is that the authorial voice saying 'darkies'?


 
He's comparing slavery to wage slavery, and suggesting that people who believe in money will believe in anything.  Basically we are the "darkies."



littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with you about one thing. When I look at a banknote, it does feel like more than a piece of paper. The purchasing power it represents is a part of what it is. It isn't just a piece of paper in that sense as that purchasing power is a real thing.


 
A fetish, in other words.

I think we can all agree on that.  We differ over the ethical status of fetishes.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> You'll need to explain THAT peculiar claim in a bit of detail for me Phil ! You say , "These forces MAY sometimes be incarnated in social classes" (?) You most certainly DO need a bourgeoisie and a proletariat for a capitalist system to exist. The classes may very often not be "class conscious" of their role. But that doesn't alter their historical or social reality --- Marx's distinction between a "class in itself" as opposed to the much higher level of self identity ,ie, "a class FOR itself" . For instance the "bourgeoisie" may be in a historically aberrant form , eg, the collective bureaucratic ruling class of the Stalinist regimes, but which are actually just a temporary collective , proxy, bourgeoisie awaiting full conventional bourgeois capitalist restoration. But "Capital" still has a social class personification. Likewise, it doesn't matter what the form of work it is that "labour" does, from very indirect value-producing "coupon clipping" (huge numbers of wage workers in the Western economies) , or working in a shopping mall, or making cars,or in a steel mill, if that activity is a part of the overall value-producing global capitalist process, then the people involved in it are objectively part of the social class of "proletarians" . Admittedly in the western advanced economies there are large numbers of proletarians left in idleness as a no longer needed reserve army of unemployed, but this doesn't alter the fact that without a value producing class of people , working for money wages, , a "proletariat" there is no "capitalism". Doesn't matter whether subjectively at various times most of the entire proletariat is persuaded that it is "middle class" or whatever bogus subjective, lifestyle-led, classification people adopt. The objective historical reality is Capital versus Labour - and both ALWAYS have human , social class representatives. The globalised geographic subdivision of the work process , with the purely localised illusion of "Post industrialisation" in the "back office - coupon clipping " advanced states of world capitalism simply doesn't abolish the class of " proletarians". Why do you think otherwise, Phil ? The concept of a "post industrial society" which has moved "beyond class struggle" and marxist "social classes" manifesting the fundamental conflict between Capital and Labour " sounds very like all that dreadful old Cold War 1960's US sociological bollocks by the likes of pro capitalist "Functionalist" ideologues like Talcott Parsons - promoted as a counterpose to Socialist/Marxist social/economic analysis. It was rubbish then, and its certainly rubbish now.


 
As I say, the _logical _contradiction is between capital and labor.  There can be no peace, no reconciliation, no long-term co-existence of capital and labor, because they are opposites.

In the late C18th, C19th and early C20th, in the industrialized world, capital and labor were approximately incarnated in two social classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat.  The bourgeois lived from capital, the proletarian lived by labor. 

But since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both.  The opposition between capital and labor is therefore internalized.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've posted this on this thread once before


 
And something tells me you'll do so once again.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Are we headed off down the route of commodity fetishism now?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> He's comparing slavery to wage slavery, and suggesting that people who believe in money will believe in anything. Basically we are the "darkies."


 
Hmmm. Ok. I thought his point was something like that. I'm still hmmm at 'darkies' in the authorial voice like that. I also don't really agree with fsg. It's very sensible to believe in the purchasing power of money. I'm cooking a meal on the basis of it right now.



phildwyer said:


> A fetish, in other words.
> 
> I think we can all agree on that. We differ over the ethical status of fetishes.


 
Ok, if that's how you'd like to use the word fetish, then yes. And yes, we differ over its ethical status, I think. I don't see how money could not be like that. And I do see the practical use of a concept like money. The fact that it is a fetish isn't in and of itself a reason to be against it.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are we headed off down the route of commodity fetishism now?


 
We never left.

Money is the image of the sheep in the body of the goat.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, the _logical _contradiction is between capital and labor. There can be no peace, no reconciliation, no long-term co-existence of capital and labor, because they are opposites.
> 
> In the late C18th, C19th and early C20th, in the industrialized world, capital and labor were approximately incarnated in two social classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeois lived from capital, the proletarian lived by labor.
> 
> But *since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both*. The opposition between capital and labor is therefore internalized.


 
I think that's the second time you've made that assertion on this thread.

It sounded like bollocks the first time, and it sounds like bollocks now.

Can you back it up?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> But since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both. The opposition between capital and labor is therefore internalized.


 
To an extent. And to a varying extent depending on the country. This is also complicated by the growth of the state post-WW2. In most industrial countries around 40 percent of GDP goes to the state, and a varying amount of the means of production are owned by the state. In these mixed economies, capitalist relations do not totally hold sway.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> We never left.
> 
> Money is the image of the sheep in the body of the goat.


Oh, ok. Not that I've got anything particular against  Marx, but I thought you might have been coming up with something new.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> I think that's the second time you've made that assertion on this thread.
> 
> It sounded like bollocks the first time, and it sounds like bollocks now.
> 
> Can you back it up?


He just means that people may be waged workers but also own their house, have money invested in the stock exchange via pension funds, etc. TBH, I think this is more true in the US, where dwyer lives, than in most of Europe. It's more true in the UK now than it was pre-Thatcher, though.

The internalisation is a result of on the one hand wanting higher wages, and on the other having a certain self-interest in company profits going up. I think its importance should not be exaggerated, though. Most of us are more proletariat than bourgeoisie in terms of where our income comes from, and even post-Thatcher, the mixed economy provides a certain degree of services outside capitalist relations altogether.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 
Is it just me, or does that look like David Mitchell in a dodgy wig?


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He just means that people may be waged workers but also own their house, have money invested in the stock exchange via pension funds, etc. TBH, I think this is more true in the US, where dwyer lives, than in most of Europe. It's more true in the UK now than it was pre-Thatcher, though.
> 
> The internalisation is a result of on the one hand wanting higher wages, and on the other having a certain self-interest in company profits going up.


 
Well, we'll see what he says for himself, but owning your own home has absolutely *nothing* to do with living from capital.

If you are going to answer phil, I want proper figures, not just bold assertion...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Well, we'll see what he says for himself, but owning your own home has absolutely *nothing* to do with living from capital.


In a capitalist society, that home you own has a potential rental value. Sure, you need to live in it, so you don't rent it out, but it certainly puts you one rung above those who don't own their home as you don't have to pay rent yourself. And you also potentially have a stake in the price of assets, something that has everything to do with capital. Even just the potential to rent out a spare room to a lodger has to do with living from capital - a house is capital when it is used like that, no?

After the rise in house prices of the last 40 years, plenty of people have found themselves with a lot of money in their pockets because they bought a house. Friends of mine who bought a house in London in the 70s for £8k have just sold that house for £750k. Regarding their jobs, they would be considered skilled working class, I guess - they're retired now; he was a printer and a chef, she worked in admin. But now they have a big wedge in their pockets - that's due to the workings of capitalism .


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In a capitalist society, that home you own has a potential rental value. Sure, you need to live in it, so you don't rent it out, but it certainly puts you one rung above those who don't own their home as you don't have to pay rent yourself. And you also potentially have a stake in the price of assets, something that has everything to do with capital. Even just the potential to rent out a spare room to a lodger has to do with living from capital - a house is capital when it is used like that, no?


You can live in it AND rent it out


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Ok. I thought his point was something like that. I'm still hmmm at 'darkies' in the authorial voice like that.


 
It's tempting to argue that it's the narrator, who is a Southerner, but it certainly sounds discordant today. But then again the story is an allegory for the economic history of America, so it would be strange if it didn't include a bit of racism.



littlebabyjesus said:


> I also don't really agree with fsg. It's very sensible to believe in the purchasing power of money.


 
It's not sensible, it's just compulsory.

How can you not agree with Fitzgerald? He certainly understood money:

"From 1870 until his death in 1900, the history of Fitz-Norman Washington was a long epic in gold. There were side issues, of course--he evaded the surveys, he married a Virginia lady, by whom he had a single son, and he was compelled, due to a series of unfortunate complications, to murder his brother, whose unfortunate habit of drinking himself into an indiscreet stupor had several times endangered their safety. But very few other murders stained these happy years of progress and expansion.

"Just before he died he changed his policy, and with all but a few million dollars of his outside wealth bought up rare minerals in bulk, which he deposited in the safety vaults of banks all over the world, marked as bric-_-brac. His son, Braddock Tarleton Washington, followed this policy on an even more tensive scale. The minerals were converted into the rarest of all elements--radium--so that the equivalent of a billion dollars in gold could be placed in a receptacle no bigger than a cigar box.

"When Fitz-Norman had been dead three years his son, Braddock, decided that the business had gone far enough. The amount of wealth that he and his father had taken out of the mountain was beyond all exact computation. He kept a note-book in cipher in which he set down the approximate quantity of radium in each of the thousand banks he patronized, and recorded the alias under which it was held. Then he did a very simple thing--he sealed up the mine.

"He sealed up the mine. What had been taken out of it would support all the Washingtons yet to be born in unparalleled luxury for generations. His one care must be the protection of his secret, lest in the possible panic attendant on its discovery he should be reduced with all the property-holders in the world to utter poverty."


----------



## love detective (Apr 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> The objective historical reality is Capital versus Labour - and both ALWAYS have human , social class representatives.


 
the point being made here, which I agree with to an extent, is not that the contradiction between capital & labour is no longer, but that there is an increasing internalisation of class struggle/antagonism within the individual himself/herself

The nice clean mapping between Capital & Bouregoise and Labour & Proletariat isn't quite as distinct as it once was

For sure the tension & struggle between Capital & Labour is still the fundamental dynamic within society, but this doesn't map out quite as neatly into sets of individuals as it once did

Class analysis is not about defining individuals anyway, it's about roles played in the reproduction of society, and increasingly the same individual can play a number of increasingly conflicting/contradictory roles. The worker with pension funds/investments who wants their money to work harder for them. The chief executive who doesn't really own capital in any real sense (no one really does in the same sense as they used to anyway) and seeks as high a compensation package as possible from the 'owners' of the company. It's not as widespread or developed as Phil would have us believe but there is an increasing tendency for class antagonisms/struggle to become internalised within individuals that just didn't exist 150 years or so ago.

Marx touches upon this a bit in Vol 3 of Capital in relation to limited companies (albeit as a focus initially on the development of the transition from functioning capitalists to 'mere' managers and the emergence of money capitalists, first as individuals and then 'socialised' through the credit system)




			
				Vol 3 Ch 27 said:
			
		

> Formation of stock companies. Thereby:
> 
> The capital, which in itself rests on a social mode of production and presupposes a social concentration of means of production and labour-power, is here directly endowed with the form of social capital (capital of directly associated individuals) as distinct from private capital, and its undertakings assume the form of social undertakings as distinct from private undertakings. *It is the abolition of capital as private property within the framework of capitalist production itself*.
> 
> ...


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Although if neo-class analysis worked you'd expect the working class to be more enthusiastic about the solutions flowing from it.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> Well, we'll see what he says for himself, but owning your own home has absolutely *nothing* to do with living from capital.
> 
> If you are going to answer phil, I want proper figures, not just bold assertion...


 
You are the one who thinks we should boycott people for quoting Abraham Lincoln:



andysays said:


> I think that's a cue for *everyone* to put him on ignore...


 
Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest men who ever lived.  Your assertion is simply preposterous, so much so that I am persuaded there is nothing to be gained by the furtherance of our acquaintance.  Good day Sir.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Y
> Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Your assertion is simply preposterous, so much so that I am persuaded there is nothing to be gained by the furtherance of our acquaintance. Good day Sir.


 And there was me thinking you were having one of your sensible days. Lincoln was, at best, a conflicted, flawed man. There are many others far more deserving of credit for the ending of slavery in the US, for instance. And aside from that ending of slavery, Lincoln was full-square behind the concept of the US as a country in which private property is king.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

love detective said:


> It's not as widespread or developed as Phil would have us believe but there is an increasing tendency for class antagonisms/struggle to become internalised within individuals that just didn't exist 150 years or so ago.


 
It may not yet be as advanced as I have suggested, but the process is proliferating.  And few psychologists or economists are taking account of it.


----------



## love detective (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Although if neo-class analysis worked you'd expect the working class to be more enthusiastic about the solutions flowing from it.


 
I wouldn't say it's neo-class analysis - it's still the same fundamental marxian analysis of capital & labour, and what the antagonism between the two leads to


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are many others far more deserving of credit for the ending of slavery in the US, for instance.


 
Like who?  John Brown?  Now _there_ was a man without any internal conflicts.

He also failed to end slavery.  Lincoln succeeded, which was quite amazing really, the smart money would have been on the South, or at least the expanionist-slavery policy of the South, to prevail before an actual shooting war broke out. 

Of course, Brown does really deserve the credit for ensuring that war broke out, so if that is a good thing to be remembered for may his soul go marching on.  I suppose it is dialectically speaking.


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You are the one who thinks we should boycott people for quoting Abraham Lincoln:
> Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Your assertion is simply preposterous, so much so that I am persuaded there is nothing to be gained by the furtherance of our acquaintance. Good day Sir.


 


It wasn't because he was quoting Lincoln, it was the ironic appropriateness of the quote to his own performance.



Jazzz said:


> _"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"_
> *Abraham Lincoln*


 
Still, I suppose your faux outrage means you can wriggle out of having to attempt to justify your bullshit assertion:



phildwyer said:


> But since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both.


 
What a couple of muppets you two are...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 6, 2013)

Butchers - I've been non urbany somewhat of late, so not continued to talk about Max Keiser here, another regular was asking too and took me less credibly for lack of response, for which I apologise.

You asked me what I had learned from D Harvey and M Keiser.

The former made some of the more technical aspects of Marx more accessible to me, just as Wheen made him more human to me. 

The latter gives, in great detail (often not so accessible, but get-able with patience) the exact specifics of the crimes under discussion. 

I think you derided MK for the voices he uses in broadcasting. I don't think personal style need preclude him being a good communicator of the info he imparts. He is attention grabbing and bombastic, not to everyone's tastes but certainly to some people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Like who? John Brown? Now _there_ was a man without any internal conflicts.
> 
> He also failed to end slavery. Lincoln succeeded, which was quite amazing really, the smart money would have been on the South, or at least the expanionist-slavery policy of the South, to prevail before an actual shooting war broke out.
> 
> Of course, Brown does really deserve the credit for ensuring that war broke out, so if that is a good thing to be remembered for may his soul go marching on. I suppose it is dialectically speaking.


For Lincoln and his class of rich northerners, the primary driver behind opposition to the spread of slavery to the west was economic. To the extent that the end of slavery was a product of economic pressures, he represents the drive towards ending slavery.

But the ending of slavery wasn't just an economic question. It was also a moral one. And in this, I'm with Chomsky, when he spoke of the real heroes of the civil rights movement being those black people who suffered for not submitting, the real heroes of the anti-Vietnam War movement being those young men who went into exile for their refusal to fight in it, not him. The real heroes of the story are those whose names have been forgotten to history. The escaped slaves who made their way north. Every black person who refused to be ground down. And that's before we come on to the white people like Thoreau who made the moral case against slavery.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Although if neo-class analysis worked you'd expect the working class to be more enthusiastic about the solutions flowing from it.


 
You mean if _traditional _class analysis worked, right?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For Lincoln and his class of rich northerners, the primary driver behind opposition to the spread of slavery to the west was economic. To the extent that the end of slavery was a product of economic pressures, he represents the drive towards ending slavery.


 
No, he "represents the drive towards ending slavery" to the extent that _he ended slavery. _



littlebabyjesus said:


> But the ending of slavery wasn't just an economic question. It was also a moral one. And in this, I'm with Chomsky. The real heroes of the story are those whose names have been forgotten to history. The escaped slaves who made their way north. Every black person who refused to be ground down. And that's before we come on to the white people like Thoreau who made the moral case against slavery.


 
Agreed, but John Brown has to be up there by anyone's estimation. The (or a) main street in Port-au-Prince (capital of the only-ever successful slave revolution) is named "Avenue John Brown." And when Malcolm X was asked if he'd allow white people to join the Organization of Afro-American Unity he answered "if John Brown were still alive we might accept him." That's pretty good street cred.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Lincoln, on his own, did not end slavery.

And yes, of course, John Brown is up there. Precisely because his objection to slavery was a _moral_ one. And his commitment was total. Yes, he's right up there.

The failure of Malcolm X to recognise that white people could be on his side too was his biggest mistake, imo.


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You are the one who thinks we should boycott people for quoting Abraham Lincoln:
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Your assertion is simply preposterous, so much so that I am persuaded there is nothing to be gained by the furtherance of our acquaintance. Good day Sir.


 
Is that a joke ? Abraham Lincoln was a vicious racist (constantly cracking racist jokes) ,  opposing the extension of slavery beyond the Southern slave states as a political convenience, only because it riled up the White working class voters that they would be undercut by  Black slave labour, as  was the case in the South.  Even after becoming convinced (largely because of the scale of Black struggle against their slaveowners in the South) that Black emanciption would be necessary as a Northern War aim late in the Civil War, Lincoln made it quite clear that after achieving liberation from slavery he saw the best place for the freed slaves as being .....sent right back to Africa !   As far away from the White folks as possible.   Lincoln was a total bigotted bastard, dwyer, as were most of your slave owning Founding Fathers. You are obviously a dupe of the US  "National creation myth" industry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

I can only presume that it's a poor troll, ayatollah. He's already backtracked from espousing the greatness of Lincoln to talking about John Brown.

Dwyer, I don't believe that you believe in this 'great men' of history balls.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Is that a joke ? Abraham Lincoln was a vicious racist (constantly cracking racist jokes) , opposing the extension of slavery beyond the Southern slave states as a political convenience, only because it riled up the White working class voters that they would be undercut by Black slave labour, as was the case in the South. Even after becoming convinced (largely because of the scale of Black struggle against their slaveowners in the South) that Black emanciption would be necessary as a Northern War aim late in the Civil War, Lincoln made it quite clear that after achieving liberation from slavery he saw the best place for the freed slaves as being .....sent right back to Africa ! As far away from the White folks as possible. Lincoln was a total bigotted bastard, dwyer, as were most of your slave owning Founding Fathers. You are obviously a dupe of the US "National creation myth" industry.


 
You have to evaluate people by the standards of their time, not ours.

If you evaluate the past by our standards then _everyone _before the C20th, including Marx, Bakunin etc. is a " total bigoted bastard."


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

I guess this discussion of American History 101 means I can forget about my calling phil out on his nonsense about us all being capitalists now, then...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You have to evaluate people by the standards of their time, not ours.


And evaluated by the standards of his time, Lincoln falls a very long way short of greatness. Conventionally ignorant for his class and time might be more accurate.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> I guess this discussion of American History 101 means I can forget about my calling phil out on his nonsense about us all being capitalists now, then...


 
Well LBJ pretty much explained it with regard to home ownership, but any pension plan or savings account would have the same effect... not to say that some people don't own more capital than others, or work harder than others, just that the opposition is no longer manifested in the objective form of class conflict in the post-industrial world to the same extent as it was circa 1750-1950....

... and the capital/labor contradiction was arguably never accurately or absolutely identified with the bourgeois/proletariat class conflict even then... hence (arguably) the failure of political parties, armed revolutions, institutions of civil societies and even states and blocs of states based around class conflict after 1950....


----------



## ayatollah (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> As I say, the _logical _contradiction is between capital and labor. There can be no peace, no reconciliation, no long-term co-existence of capital and labor, because they are opposites.
> 
> In the late C18th, C19th and early C20th, in the industrialized world, capital and labor were approximately incarnated in two social classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeois lived from capital, the proletarian lived by labor.
> 
> But since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both. The opposition between capital and labor is therefore internalized.


 
This is utter crap Dwyer -  as if the  participation of workers, mainly solely via minimal participation in their private pension schemes,and thus , passively in the investment processes of capitalism negates their primary objective identitity as "proletarians".   You claim "The opposition between capital and labour is therefore internalised". Sorry Dwyer, but there is actually a Big Bourgeoisie of real people out there in globalised capitalism who really do pretty much own everything. And what they don't directly own, they control. They really are the 1% who the Occupy Movement have rightly identified as the human personification of the power of Capital.  Yes, yes, there are nowadays all sorts of extra graduations of incredibly well paid capitalist hirelings atop the big corporations/banks who whilst earning millions are not quite the equivalent of the pure 19th century bourgeoisie. Maybe they are conflicted by their nominally (proletarian ?) wage-earning combined with massive shareholding social status ?  I'd say they were pretty clearly just a more recent subset of the bourgeoisie in the era of Joint Stock companies myself. Are the mass of the population  really , objectively, "internally conflicted" by a dual identity as part proletarians and part capitalists just because they participate in private pension funds or hold a few shares ? Of course they bloody well  aren't. They might be ideologcally confused, and think they are "middle class"  because of this, but the key social relationship most wage earning citizens have in reality is still a proletarian relationship with the overwhelming social power of capital. All the gobbledegook about "internalised capital/labour" conflicts at the level of the typical individual replacing the Bourgeois/Proletariat social class divide is pure ideological smoke - feeding the US myth  of the "middle class" , aimed at persuading the mass of people with an absolutely  negligable stake in the capitalist system to identify with capital's interests  against their real proletarian interests.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

You're a dupe of the propaganda, dwyer. Let's face facts.

I totally agree with ayatollah on this. And I think it is a powerful message - most of us, even those who self-identify as middle class, have the same fundamental interests at heart. There's a huge scope for a broad-based movement against capitalism here, I think. It isn't happening, but there is scope for it.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Conventionally ignorant for his class


 
You wot? This is the same A. Lincoln, the most famous autodidact in history?



littlebabyjesus said:


> And evaluated by the standards of his time


 
I'd say he was considerably ahead of his time. Not as far ahead as John Brown, but then Brown was so far ahead that everyone thought he was bonkers.

More to the point, it woz Lincoln wot won it. More than any other single individual he is responsible for ending slavery.

And it was a close-run thing, as I said before. With a different man in charge, slavery might easily never have ended.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're a dupe of the propaganda, dwyer


 
I read this just after reading Ayatollah's post, and I honestly saw that as "dupe of the paragraph..."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I read this just after reading Ayatollah's post, and I honestly saw that as "dupe of the paragraph..."


It takes _commitment_ to read ayatollah's posts.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Sorry Dwyer, but there is actually a Big Bourgeoisie of real people out there in globalised capitalism who really do pretty much own everything. And what they don't directly own, they control.


 
They don't control it. It controls them. Their actions are designed to maximize profit: that is the only logic they know. They obey no human logic or reason.

Economically speaking that is. But of course they are not solely economic creatures. Some of them are even us, if we have pension plans, savings, own a home, even live in a Western society...

... it's not like the 1840s, when the proletariat owned nothing, gained nothing from society, and would have been better off smashing it to bits....

... not yet...


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Well LBJ pretty much explained it with regard to home ownership, but any pension plan or savings account would have the same effect... not to say that some people don't own more capital than others, or work harder than others, just that the opposition is no longer manifested in the objective form of class conflict in the post-industrial world to the same extent as it was circa 1750-1950....
> 
> ... and the capital/labor contradiction was arguably never accurately or absolutely identified with the bourgeois/proletariat class conflict even then... hence (arguably) the failure of political parties, armed revolutions, institutions of civil societies and even states and blocs of states based around class conflict after 1950....


 
So having a few grand in a savings account in the bank makes me a capitalist?

Thanks for your contribution, but the thread title is *"critique* of loon theories..." not an invitation to post your own


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And it was a close-run thing, as I said before. With a different man in charge, slavery might easily never have ended.


Oh, it would have ended, just not then and like that.

The ending of slavery in the US is a very difficult topic for me. The way that ending slavery was imposed on the South had massive repercussions that are still being played out today. And the fact that it was ended by a Republican whose primary interests were the interests of business also had repercussions, not least that the freed slaves were then more or less abandoned. But then there is no ex-slavery society in the world in which the descendants of the slaves are not still, by and large, at the bottom of society. The ending of slavery was just the start of a movement towards social justice that is still very much on the go.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

andysays said:


> So having a few grand in a savings account in the bank makes me a capitalist?


 
To an extent.  A small extent perhaps, but that's something very different from no extent at all.

And that's not to mention the benefits you (presumably) enjoy simply by virtue of living in an imperialist nation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can only presume that it's a poor troll, ayatollah. He's already backtracked from espousing the greatness of Lincoln to talking about John Brown.
> 
> Dwyer, I don't believe that you believe in this 'great men' of history balls.


Not only does he believe it, he thinks he is one of the great men of history.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2013)

More concrete example might be the social engineering intent behind Thatcher's introduction of council house sales.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, it would have ended, just not then and like that.


 
Some would say it hasn't ended yet.

It's true that ever since Reconstruction, the prison system has been used as a surrogate for slavery. And that wage slavery can be materially worse than chattel slavery. But still, there was something uniquely evil about the CSA... one case which really is comparable only to Nazi Germany...

... and they could have gotten away with it too, at least forced a peaceful co-existence on the North, if it hadn't been for that pesky Lincoln, who seized the chance of abolishing slavery by insisting on the complete destruction of the South... gone with the wind and all that...


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> More concrete example might be the social engineering intent behind Thatcher's introduction of council house sales.


 
Or the mass sell-offs of shares that attended privatization... significant if only as propaganda, or maybe as revealing the Thatcherite self-image...


----------



## yield (Apr 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Some would say it hasn't ended yet.
> 
> It's true that ever since Reconstruction, the prison system has been used as a surrogate for slavery. And that wage slavery can be materially worse than slavery. But still, there was something uniquely evil about the CSA... one case which really is comparable only to Nazi Germany...


 
The Child Support Agency isn't that bad.

Ok I'll get my coat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> More concrete example might be the social engineering intent behind Thatcher's introduction of council house sales.





phildwyer said:


> Or the mass sell-offs of shares that attended privatization... significant if only as propaganda, or maybe as revealing the Thatcherite self-image...


Hugely significant in that it extended capitalism. But today, who owns those shares, who controls the privatised utilities? And the destruction of social housing was a prerequisite for the housing bubble.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2013)

Thing about council house sales specifically, and encouraging home ownership generally (there are some really interesting quotes from Franco's housing minister in something butchers posted a while back that I'll try to find), is that it creates a degree of alignment of ordinary people's economic self-interest against strikes or any other activity that risks their ability to pay their mortgage and council tax, and aligns those interests instead (in a minor way) with various elements of the bourgeoisie. Wanting their equity (along with the value of their pension pot etc) to stay buoyant.


----------



## love detective (Apr 6, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This is utter crap Dwyer - as if the participation of workers, mainly solely via minimal participation in their private pension schemes,and thus , passively in the investment processes of capitalism negates their primary objective identitity as "proletarians". You claim "The opposition between capital and labour is therefore internalised". Sorry Dwyer, but there is actually a Big Bourgeoisie of real people out there in globalised capitalism who really do pretty much own everything. And what they don't directly own, they control. They really are the 1% who the Occupy Movement have rightly identified as the human personification of the power of Capital. Yes, yes, there are nowadays all sorts of extra graduations of incredibly well paid capitalist hirelings atop the big corporations/banks who whilst earning millions are not quite the equivalent of the pure 19th century bourgeoisie. Maybe they are conflicted by their nominally (proletarian ?) wage-earning combined with massive shareholding social status ? I'd say they were pretty clearly just a more recent subset of the bourgeoisie in the era of Joint Stock companies myself. Are the mass of the population really , objectively, "internally conflicted" by a dual identity as part proletarians and part capitalists just because they participate in private pension funds or hold a few shares ? Of course they bloody well aren't. They might be ideologcally confused, and think they are "middle class" because of this, but the key social relationship most wage earning citizens have in reality is still a proletarian relationship with the overwhelming social power of capital. All the gobbledegook about "internalised capital/labour" conflicts at the level of the typical individual replacing the Bourgeois/Proletariat social class divide is pure ideological smoke - feeding the US myth of the "middle class" , aimed at persuading the mass of people with an absolutely negligable stake in the capitalist system to identify with capital's interests against their real proletarian interests.


 
Loath as I am to give any kind of support to Dwyer - I think you've misunderstood (probably because of Phil's usual dramatic exaggeration of the scale of the development) the subtleties and implications of the tendency that's being described here

It's not about, as you state, that the core objective economic exploited condition of working class life is _negated_ by things like workers' pension schemes and investments. Neither is it about ideological confusion, or anything to do with 'middle class'. Nor is it about ideological smoke aimed at persuading people to identify with capital's interests. It's merely an accurate observation that there is a certain amount of internalisation of class antagonism that exists today (in certain 'western' areas) that never previously existed in this way.

To ignore these developments and the various implications of them for class struggle in the here & now means there is less light being shined upon the various terrains in which that struggle takes place. And that can only benefit Capital.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

I can't remember who said it, but in the US, as far back as the 1930s, it was observed that workers who own their own homes are less likely to go on strike.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

love detective said:


> To ignore these developments and the various implications of them for class struggle in the here & now means there is less light being shined upon the various terrains in which that struggle takes place.


I agree, but it shouldn't be exaggerated. Most people are more wage-earners than dividend reapers still.

Home-owning is perhaps the most pernicious of the developments, when it is combined with rising house prices.


----------



## love detective (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree, but it shouldn't be exaggerated.


 
As I said in previous posts:-




			
				love detective said:
			
		

> It's not as widespread or developed as Phil would have us believe


 



			
				love detective said:
			
		

> Phil's usual dramatic exaggeration of the scale of the development


----------



## junglevip (Apr 6, 2013)

Oh alright then.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...most-interested-in-Bitcoin-searches-show.html


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2013)

I'm hoping that someone a bit more coherent about this stuff can help me out here, but I want to say something like ... 

Given that the valuation of people's homes as security for their credit cards is about the only thing keeping our economy going, and given that that value is largely fictitious (a 1-bed flat in Kensington is how many million?) being a home owner makes you complicit with that fiction (which is dangerously close to what phil is saying I know, but fuck it, I think  he has a point somewhere amid the trolling on this occasion)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

love detective said:


> As I said in previous posts:-


Yes, fair enough. So you did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I'm hoping that someone a bit more coherent about this stuff can help me out here, but I want to say something like ...
> 
> Given that the valuation of people's homes as security for their credit cards is about the only thing keeping our economy going, and given that that value is largely fictitious (a 1-bed flat in Kensington is how many million?) being a home owner makes you complicit with that fiction (which is dangerously close to what phil is saying I know, but fuck it, I think he has a point somewhere amid the trolling on this occasion)


 
I get the impression that a lot of people who were caught up in the mania of the boom are now starting to realise the consequences of that boom for, for instance, their children. A little like, perhaps, people now starting to realise exactly what it was they were selling when they were given their payoffs for their building societies being turned into banks.

It's a good example of how some of the consequences of Thatcher's policies are only now being seen in full.


That's the problem with phil. In between the trolling, he makes interesting points, and some of the things he argues he really does believe and are worth engaging with. Can be difficult at times working out which is which. Best just to argue with him about everything imo.


----------



## yield (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's the problem with phil. In between the trolling, he makes interesting points, and some of the things he argues he really does believe and are worth engaging with. Can be difficult at times working out which is which. Best just to argue with him about everything imo.


Where phil becomes interesting is along the lines.

"Capitalism is immoral." "What is the basis of morality without god?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2013)

yield said:


> Where phil becomes interesting is along the lines.
> 
> "Capitalism is immoral." "What is the basis of morality without god?"


Actually that's the one topic he's exhausted me with. That and witches.

He does really believe the rational proof of god gumpf, though, which makes him  interesting, _psychologically speaking_.


----------



## yield (Apr 6, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually that's the one topic he's exhausted me with. That and witches.


Embarrassingly still leaves me a fence sitter.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 6, 2013)

BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "my kids can't get a council house 'cos of all them immigrants"

Me: "so did you have a council house?" 

BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "Yep, buying it was the best thing I ever did. Maggie was the best prime minister since Churchill" etc.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 7, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "my kids can't get a council house 'cos of all them immigrants"
> 
> Me: "so did you have a council house?"
> 
> BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "Yep, buying it was the best thing I ever did. Maggie was the best prime minister since Churchill" etc.


You can lead a man to logic but you can't make him think.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 7, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "my kids can't get a council house 'cos of all them immigrants"
> 
> Me: "so did you have a council house?"
> 
> BNP/UKIP taxi driver: "Yep, buying it was the best thing I ever did. Maggie was the best prime minister since Churchill" etc.


 
I've met him. Flogged his house a few years back and moved out to Essex because London's a foreign country these days. Oh, and for the golf.


----------



## love detective (Apr 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He does really believe the rational proof of god gumpf, though


 
He's well aware of the inherent contradiction he's got himself into with this - in that the foundation of his 'proof' for the fact that money doesn't exist, is exactly the same as he uses to 'prove' that god does exist.

In reality, the fetishisation of both religion & capital stem from the same process of alienation of human power/activity. And the externalising of that power through social processes & relationships, so that 'it' in turn stands above and in opposition to the human beings who provide the sole source of 'it's' power



yield said:


> Where phil becomes interesting is along the lines.
> 
> "Capitalism is immoral." "What is the basis of morality without god?"


 
As with the rational proof of god nonsense above - from as far back as Kant, this kind of proposition has been rationally rebutted, by

1. Using Reason to show that it's not morality that is derived from religion, but instead it's religion that is derived from morality , i.e. god's not necessary for morality as morality itself is based on, and produced by, human reason. Which opens up the concept (long before Feuerbach who is usually credited with it) of the human production of god, endowed with human engendered morality and being the outward projection of humans inward nature - which in turn leads to the problems of fetishisation & alienation per above

2. Using reason itself to rule out reason as a proof of god's existence




			
				Kant said:
			
		

> Reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer


 



			
				Kant said:
			
		

> Reason should take on anew the most difficult of its tasks, namely, that of self-knowledge, and to institute a court of justice, by which reason may secure its rightful claims while dismissing all its groundless pretensions, and this not by mere decrees but according to its own eternal and unchangeable laws: and this court is none other than the critique of pure reason itself.


 



			
				Kant said:
			
		

> I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

love detective said:


> with the rational proof of god nonsense above - from as far back as Kant, this kind of proposition has been rationally rebutted, by
> 
> 1. Using Reason to show that it's not morality that is derived from religion, but instead it's religion that is derived from morality , i.e. god's not necessary for morality as morality itself is based on, and produced by, human reason. Which opens up the concept (long before Feuerbach who is usually credited with it) of the human production of god, endowed with human engendered morality and being the outward projection of humans inward nature - which in turn leads to the problems of fetishisation & alienation per above
> 
> 2. Using reason itself to rule out reason as a proof of god's existence


i think machiavelli, in the discourses, argues for religion being created by the state to justify its existence.


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2013)

For all of you tempted to examine the minutia of phildwyer's nonsensical ramblings, wondering if perhaps there is a tiny nugget of truth or an atom of interest amongst the dross, the moment has clearly come for me to post this:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've posted this on this thread once before but it's just about the best explanation I've ever seen of the kinds of stuff lbj is getting at here - of money as social power, relating it to value production/abstract labour and explaining it in terms of a commodity fetish/bad abstraction. All the Kapitalism101 videos are great but this one is particularly good, only a couple of 10 minute clips but it helped me get my head around a few things I'd been struggling with.
> 
> Part 1:
> 
> ...




Good, clear explanations. And he makes a valid point about what he calls 'market socialism' in that the drive for expanding production for its own sake that the logic of capital and the profit motive demands would not be removed. It's a point that's been made on here, but I do think the profit motive is significantly changed by a cooperative structure. Dwyer has spoken of the internalising of the contradictions of capital caused by the existence within the same individual of both proletarian and bourgeois interests. In a coop, that internalisation is at its most complete, I would think - a synthesis, perhaps, of proletariat and bourgeoisie that abolishes both concepts and the contradictions between them. That's probably an idealisation of the process, but I think the essence of the idea is true, and that its real world consequences would be that the profit for profit's sake of capitalism would change in character to something more considered and benign.

I'm probably in the camp he calls 'market socialists' - with a big wedge of collective social provision and collective control of essential resources added to the mix. I do see some form of a mixed economy with a 'private sector' comprising cooperative worker-owned businesses as a workable structure that would provide a break from shareholder capitalism. And I see some forms of private property and market exchange mediated by money as part of that structure. I would also argue that as capitalism fails and the rate of profit tends towards zero, space opens up for the gradual replacement of capitalist investment with social investment, a first step towards which could be the setting up of state-backed mutual societies that would only lend money to businesses incorporated as cooperatives. Changing the nature of banking would be a part of the process - because changing the nature of the ownership of banks would be as important as changing the nature of the ownership of other businesses, and it could also be the lead step in starting the process of the mutualisation of the economy.

Cooperative, worker-owned businesses competing in a market are of course subject to market pressures, but as their ultimate responsibility is towards their workers, not shareholders, I would argue that their profit motive is very different in character - it isn't so much a 'profit motive' as a 'maximise the welfare of the workers within market constraints motive'.

What is missing from his analysis is an idea of what he would see as replacing capitalism. He rejects market socialism and advocates the destruction of the whole system of value abstraction, but he doesn't say what he would replace it with. Personally, I'm far more optimistic about the improvements that 'market socialism' would bring. I also dispute his idea that those organisations that are the least cooperative in nature will be those that succeed - there is evidence that changing the ownership of businesses so that they are worker-owned changes this 'race to the bottom' markedly, that improvements in production are achieved far more through investment in workers and improvements in working conditions. Increasing short-term profit at any cost is not the driving force behind cooperative businesses.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 7, 2013)

I've seen at least as much evidence of coops having, in time, to act in less 'cooperative' ways and internalise capitalist logic due to competition, which would back up the idea that the less cooperative ones would win out. Mondragon is a classic example of this, despite it always being used as an example of how much more efficient co-ops can be.

As for transcending value production, I've not had the chance to read it yet but this has been recommended to me as a decent attempt to sketch out how it might be done, based mainly on Marx's own writings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

Well, looking at the wiki entry on Mondragon, it says wrt wages that:



> In general, wages at Mondragon, as compared to similar jobs in local industries, are 30% or less at the management levels and equivalent at the middle management, technical and professional levels. As a result, Mondragon worker-owners at the lower wage levels earn an average of 13% higher wages than workers in similar businesses.


 
Also, all workers actively participate in decision-making.

In that same wiki article, Chomsky is quoted as saying:



> It’s worker owned, it’s not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it’s in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you’re in a system where you must make profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities fixed on others.


 
Which is certainly true. And John Lewis in the UK, a rather less cooperative structure than Mondragon, also exemplifies this. And yet, workers at these places, even though they are operating in competition with non-coops, are significantly better off and have significantly greater say over what happens in the workplace. Even where they are operating in competition with shareholder-owned businesses, they constitute a concrete improvement on those businesses.

I would argue that the more coops there are, the greater the scope there will be to advance non-exploitative practices. Where all businesses are coops, they will on average all be more cooperative, basically.

My other main point would be that whatever change you advocate, you have to be able to indicate a way to get there from here. I think I can do that wrt 'market socialism'. I'm not at all clear how those who advocate the complete transcendence of value production propose to get there from here.

One thing I disagree with Chomsky about is the necessity for a coop to make a profit to survive. It must make a profit to _expand_, but it can survive merely by breaking even. That is a difference. Within a capitalist system, businesses that merely break even are closed down. Within a cooperative system, businesses that merely break even have no reason to close down. In fact, given that there is no external capitalist to pay those profits to, a coop doesn't really make profits at all. Ultimately, if it does well in the marketplace, that results in its workers getting richer or it taking on more workers or both. A coop does not operate to the same profit motive as capitalist businesses.

To take the example of John Lewis, its constitution states that it must pay 50% of its profits to its workers in bonuses and that the other 50% must be reinvested in the business _in ways that will benefit the workers_. Not a penny of those 'profits' leaves the business, and the business is worker-owned. It's really not the same thing as the profit of a capitalist business at all.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well, looking at the wiki entry on Mondragon, it says wrt wages that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Not sure that's true. Businesses that only break even cannot afford to take on new tech when competitors do, when to not take it on is to fall behind and do worse than break even. And of course this new tech usually means job losses. They need a capital fund - and this, combined with the inevitably lower rates of exploitation, gives capitalistic enterprises an edge.

And I'm not sure that it's any clearer how you would move from here to a 100% cooperative system given the combination powerful interests ranged against it and the pressures exerted on cooperatives by the coercive laws of competition, especially during a transitional period in which co-ops and standard capitalist enterprises compete with one another.

The most difficult obstacle is never working out how the system would work or even how it could, in theory, evolve from what we have now. The hard part is working out how you would manage to get those for whom the current system grants a huge amount of power to let you do it. They'd do all kinds of things - ranging from pooling resources to subsidise capitalistic competitors of especially successful co-ops so they could undercut them to the extent that they go out of business etc to outright sabotage, using their economic power to lobby for legislation that works against coops and so on.

I actually think that the kind of class movement you'd need to get anywhere with co-ops would need to be so powerful that you might as well use it to overcome market relations altogether. For me, that means a planned economy - one that could use the kinds of stock control/production software currently used by multinational corporations which are themselves planned economies - in many cases bigger than most national economies. You democratically decide what needs to be produced, with need, want, environmental concerns etc at the forefront in decision making (the means of doing this would have to be elaborated but I'd expect a combination of representative and direct decision making, depending on the importance of the decision being made - alternatives might be a choice between different plans that people could vote for - there's all kinds of ways this could work) and tasks are then allocated to different productive units that are run cooperatively - the plan decides what they need to make and the workplace decides how they're going to get their contribution to the plan done.

I think anything that attempts to get away from capitalism without using some form of planned economy is doomed to failure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not sure that's true. Businesses that only break even cannot afford to take on new tech when competitors do, when to not take it on is to fall behind and do worse than break even. And of course this new tech usually means job losses. They need a capital fund - and this, combined with the inevitably lower rates of exploitation, gives capitalistic enterprises an edge.


That would be where the mutual/state banks come in, no, providing the funds for new investment where they are needed. All things being equal, a coop has a competitive advantage over a capitalist business as it does not need to hand over money to external parties in the form of dividends. It may need to produce funds for future investment, but it doesn't need to produce funds for the returns on capital. Its driving force is the good of its workers, not the good of capital.

When I look at the likes of Mondragon or John Lewis, I see businesses for whom it is better to work than their capitalist competitors, and that within a system where they are very much the minority. I'm convinced that where there are far more coops in the market, the working conditions would be even more markedly better.

As for the problem of stopping capitalists from sabotaging a transition to coops, as I said above, the space for this could be provided by the failure of capitalism itself. The self-interests of those capitalists themselves could be to support the change to coops because the places where capitalist investment can produce returns for them are disappearing.

I think if you look at places like Japan, the problems of the stalled (although still very productive) economy and diminishing returns on capital are producing an impasse precisely because this kind of solution is not being tried. I also think that we may soon reach a point where the logic of capitalism to shift production away from richer countries will come full-square against the social problems this logic produces in those richer countries. Something will have to give. The political will to change could appear because it will have to appear in order to avoid societal breakdown.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That would be where the mutual/state banks come in, no, providing the funds for new investment where they are needed. All things being equal, a coop has a competitive advantage over a capitalist business as it does not need to hand over money to external parties in the form of dividends. It may need to produce funds for future investment, but it doesn't need to produce funds for the returns on capital. Its driving force is the good of its workers, not the good of capital.


 
Its driving force is value production, that's the problem. And the state banks - which state are we talking about? Only I'd not bet on the capitalist state taking the side of coops over private enterprise.



littlebabyjesus said:


> When I look at the likes of Mondragon or John Lewis, I see businesses for whom it is better to work than their capitalist competitors, and that within a system where they are very much the minority. I'm convinced that where there are far more coops in the market, the working conditions would be even more markedly better.


 
You're not really addressing the problems I've raised I'm afraid. How do you get more coops in the market? When there's relatively few of them they're tolerated - they're not a threat. You just watch what happens if it starts to look like they might become the dominant form. There'd be all out economic war against them and it would be incredibly naive to think that the state would do anything other than take the side of capital.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There'd be all out economic war against them and it would be incredibly naive to think that the state would do anything other than take the side of capital.


There have been times and places where the state has not sided full-square with capital. I would argue that post-WW2 UK is an example. It was widely believed that state-owned industry was the right way to go, and this was done - most of the country's heavy industry was nationalised. That isn't siding with capital.

I agree that when you look at the current political landscape, the will to attempt anything like this is nowhere to be seen. But that can change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Its driving force is value production, that's the problem. And the state banks - which state are we talking about? Only I'd not bet on the capitalist state taking the side of coops over private enterprise.


As I said above, I would see this process being driven by state-backed banks that only lend to coops. This isn't such a big step on from the ideas behind Germany's landesbanks. And yes, that would require a political will to move away from capitalist investment, and that political will does not currently exist. But we differ in that I could see that will developing as the current crisis deepens, which I am sure it will, and the capitalist model of investment fails.

Of course, such things are not simply granted from above by a benevolent political class. They must be demanded from below. But they must also be advocated. I think a coherent plan for a different future can work to galvanise pressure for change. I would argue that Marx's ideas did that, for instance. And the slow death of capitalism due to its own internal contradictions, which I think we may be witnessing, does open up space for this kind of thing, for 'market socialism' to become a powerful force for change. It is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It is a gradualist approach. But for me, that is a strength, not a weakness. And I think it could potentially have a strong, broad cross-class appeal to the '99 percent'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

Having said all of the above, I do take on board the point that you are not entirely switching away from the driver of production for production's sake by moving to coops. One potential mechanism to mitigate this would be the system of state-backed/mutual banking. It could provide a degree of central planning wrt the kinds of businesses that are invested in, and it would need to - its remit would have to be far wider than simply making money through loans, and there's no reason it couldn't be.

This may be an unpopular view on here, but I am skeptical of a system that is entirely centrally planned. Market mechanisms do provide a certain energy that allows an economy to thrive. They allow for differences in people's wants to be accommodated. Very hard to accommodate those differences, which are constantly changing, purely through central planning. I don't say this as an apology for the current system. Far from it. But I say it in order to explain why I don't necessarily want to see all markets abolished. A system in which aspects of the economy are left open to markets, where those wishing to enter those markets obtain their finance from banks that have a wider remit of regulating economic activity for the social good, provides a balance, I think, between the creative power of individual innovation and the collective need for socially responsible economic activity, while ensuring that ownership of the means of production remains in the hands of the workers.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> I've not got time to read the whole thing at the moment Jazzz, it's 30 pages long. It's 30 pages long because there is 26 pages worth of exposition for her argument. I've come across her being a bit odd at times, but I didn't have her pegged as one of the gold standard nuts, which is why I will do her the courtesy of reading it properly before commenting more. I really don't think it says what you think it says, and if it does it does not lend support to your arguments. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of economists have been getting it wrong for a while now.


This is simple: you can't seriously expect me to have you tell me what it says when you can't quote from it.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We are inching towards agreement, but also going around in circles. I agree with the above account. But the following bit isn't correct:
> 
> They keep, as you say, around 3 percent of their demand liabilities in the liquid form of cash. But they must also 'back' the other 97 percent, and they do this with the assets. And those assets must be believed to be worth what they are said to be worth - they must be credible loans that give those holding the demand liabilities the confidence not to demand their liabilities back all at once. And this is the bit where we're going in circles, as this is exactly what happened to Northern Rock. This is also where the time difference between assets and liabilities is important - banks must constantly be acquiring new short-term liabilities to fund their long-term assets, and at each point where they seek new liabilities, their assets must be believed to be credible by those lending to them: people must believe that the bank will be able to pay them back. You get this, but don't seem to get its importance to the process.
> 
> ...


 
okay, I understand what it is you think is happening now.

*THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!!!*

Again, I ask you consider the four loans by four high st. banks, in urbantown. You can guess which bank people bank with.

bank A loans Alf £1000, Bank B loans Bertie £1000, Bank C loans Carolina £1000, Bank D loans Dominic £1000

Now, each bank's demand liabilities have risen £1000 (four thousand pounds have been created)
interbank flows = 0

Now Alf draws on his loan and pays Bob. Bertie draws on his loan and pays Charlie. Carolina draws on her loan and pays Dave. Dominic draws on his loan and pays Alexandra.

Net interbank flows = 0 (each bank has paid out £1000, and received £1000 so there is no change to their cash reserves)
Demand liabilities of banks: no change

No bank need take out any loan to 'fund' their lending. That's it! We simply have an additional four grand circulating in the system, and interest on four grand payable to the banks for the privilege of managing the process.

You must see that the nature of the process is that, to a very large degree, the clearing flows negate each other. As money loaned by one bank goes to another, so does money loaned by others flow to it. This is what allows fractional reserve lending to work in modern times. To the extent that they do not, that is where the interbank lending market features: it allows the banks to pool their cash reserves.

Of course, please observe that if all banks had to borrow in order to cover their demand liabilities, then they would all be stuck, as there would be no banks to borrow from. In fact what you describe LBJ is simply full-reserve banking without creation of new money.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 7, 2013)

andysays said:


> For all of you tempted to examine the minutia of phildwyer's nonsensical ramblings, wondering if perhaps there is a tiny nugget of truth or an atom of interest amongst the dross, the moment has clearly come for me to post this<snip>


If what Dwyer comes out with is indeed "a piece of shit", he still argues it a damn sight better than you do with what you claim to be a far more valid point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 7, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> In fact what you describe LBJ is simply full-reserve banking without creation of new money.


No it isn't. What I describe is something that could theoretically be described as zero-reserve lending - banks making a loan, creating an equal deposit in the system by making that loan and then going off in search of a deposit from the system after having expanded the money supply. For as long as the loans it makes remain credible, they should have no trouble finding that finance to cover them. As soon as the loans lose credibility, they are in big trouble.

Now in terms of demonstrating the truth of this 'loan-first' system, I'd be interested to know how often the following happens:

Bank A grants a mortgage of £100k to Bill to buy a house from Angela. Bill is provided with Angela's bank details at Bank B to make the transfer.

A sensible way to operate here would be for Bank A to contact Bank B to tell them that this money is to be deposited and arrange for Bank B to lend Bank A £100k at exactly the same time that the mortgage is granted. Bank A charges Bill 5% interest, Bank A pays Bank B 3% interest, and Bank B pays Angela 1% interest. Margins for each bank along the line. Credit extended and money created. And at no point is the loan not covered in Bank A's accounts.

And having extended the loan, Bank A then goes off in search of deposits on which it can pay 1% to cover its loan. That way, it can pay back Bank B and increase its margins. This would certainly explain why banks expend so much more energy advertising their savings schemes than they do advertising their lending schemes. Borrowers will come to them, and savers must then be actively sought out.

However, for the loan-first system to be functional, all that is needed is for banks to be able to consider all transactions undertaken on the same day as having happened at the same time for their accounting purposes. That way, they can settle their accounts at the end of the day and borrow from other banks where necessary. Again, we're bashing up against the wall of my ignorance here - I'd like to know whether this, or something like it, is what actually happens. Certainly, on bank statements, only the date of a transaction is given, not the time of day.

The bit you're missing here is that only 3% of the bank's loans might be covered by cash, but that other 97% has to be covered by borrowing. This is simply a factually correct statement.

Also, you have a go at ld for having the understanding of an accountant, but understanding accounting procedures is crucial to understanding how the system works. For instance, for the loan-first model to be even theoretically correct, certain aspects of the accounting system must operate in certain ways.


----------



## andysays (Apr 7, 2013)

Greebo said:


> If what Dwyer comes out with is indeed "a piece of shit", he still argues it a damn sight better than you do with what you claim to be a far more valid point.


 
I haven't seen any real "argument" at all, just an assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up.



phildwyer said:


> The bourgeois lived from capital, the proletarian lived by labor. But since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do both.


 
If he expects that to be taken seriously, he has to back it up with statistics to demonstrate that since the Second World War, the vast majority of people in the post-industrial West do indeed live both from capital and by labour, and the relative proportions of those two sources of income. Unless and until he does that, it's bollocks and deserves to be dismissed as such with no further thought.

"Don't get caught up in that fevered, hyped, phony fucking debate about that Piece of Shit... You're just confused, you've forgotten how to judge correctly. Take a deep breath, look at it again. "Oh, it's a Piece of Shit!" Exactly, that's all it is. Piece of Shit. Walk away. "But is it ..." You're getting really baffled here: Piece of Shit, now walk away! That's all it is, it's nothing more!"


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it isn't. What I describe is something that could theoretically be described as zero-reserve lending - banks making a loan, creating an equal deposit in the system...


I'm a bit upset that you have not commented on the example I gave in my last post which demonstrates why banks do not need to borrow to cover their loans.



> The bit you're missing here is that only 3% of the bank's loans might be covered by cash, but that other 97% has to be covered by borrowing. This is simply a factually correct statement.


*NO IT IS NOT. *It is quite incorrect. I am trying to think of the best angle by which I can explain this in a way I haven't already tried.

Perhaps for this post, let me point out that it simply doesn't make sense, because when banks borrow from banks, they are increasing their cash reserves. So you must realise that that would be full-reserve banking.



> Also, you have a go at ld for having the understanding of an accountant, but understanding accounting procedures is crucial to understanding how the system works.


Indeed it is all bookkeeping. But nevertheless accountants and even economists may not understand this.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 8, 2013)

love detective said:


> _God does not exist. Where is this so-called "God" they're going on about then, if it's so important? Show it to us._
> 
> So I guess if your crude/vulgar empiricism has achieved anything on its own terms, it's your admission of God's non existence after years of attempting to argue the opposite


 
Followed by:



love detective said:


> He's well aware of the inherent contradiction he's got himself into with this - in that the foundation of his 'proof' for the fact that money doesn't exist, is exactly the same as he uses to 'prove' that god does exist.
> 
> In reality, the fetishisation of both religion & capital stem from the same process of alienation of human power/activity. And the externalising of that power through social processes & relationships, so that 'it' in turn stands above and in opposition to the human beings who provide the sole source of 'it's' power


 
So we can agree that money and God have no physical existence--only primitive idolators ascribe a physical existence to deity. We can agree that neither money nor God exist outside the human mind.

Presumably we can also agree that, despite existing only in the human mind, both money and God are objectively very powerful.

But none of this means that money and God are the same, or even similar. Money is a sign, for example, while God is a concept.

The psychological and practical implications of attributing objective power to a sign are very different from those of attributing objective power to a concept.

The former is superstitious, the latter rational.

And so it is not I who am the 'empiricist' here. To attribute power to signs is to be an empiricist, for it is to accept appearance as reality. That is what money makes us do.

But to attribute power to a concept, at least to a single concept as in Platonism and monotheism, is to assume a difference between appearance and reality. It is to assume that signs derive their significance from their referents, and ultimately from the referent of referents or _logos._

That is why "you cannot serve God and Mammon" and so forth.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 8, 2013)

Still and all, if we do agree that money is merely a sign, then the debate about the "economy" begins to look very different.

The ethics and pragmatics of the rise to dominance of "leverage," "securitization," "derivatives" and the like can be acknowledged as questions of semiotics.

Such terms do not describe real events in the objective world.  They describe changes in the relationships between various kinds of sign, or if you prefer a practical struggle concerning the nature of signs.

I shall return soon, but no-one should claim that I am neglecting to address their questions; wait at least until I've had my burrito.


----------



## love detective (Apr 8, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> So we can agree that money and God have no physical existence--only primitive idolators ascribe a physical existence to deity. We can agree that neither money nor God exist outside the human mind.
> 
> Presumably we can also agree that, despite existing only in the human mind, both money and God are objectively very powerful.
> 
> ...


 
As you say, we can agree on your first two paragraphs

Even you don't believe however we can agree on the rest of your post though - hence the lack of any presumption of agreement on your part

And I'm sure you don't have any trouble in believing that I don't even believe you believe what you have written yourself in the rest of the post

All you've done is arbitrarily and a priori defined money and god as two different things so that you can maintain some kind of logical coherence in your claims that god exists but money doesn't or that they are different in some fundamental way (maintaining logical coherence on the basis of faulty premises however doesn't really achieve much)

The only things you've said which are objectively true are the first two sentences which put God & Money in the same conceptual category - both of which receive their power from the same objective source, human beings.

The psychological and practical implications of the attribution/alienation of this objective human power to a subjective non-human symbol are the same. The mechanics of, and results from, the fetishisation of god and capital are one and the same - the domination and control of the producers by that which they themselves have produced/reproduced.

And thing is, it's not me who attributes power to signs (money), it's you. You're always going on about how it can grow by doing nothing and i'm always pointing out that this is you falling for the 'ultimate fetish' as Marx called it. You say it can grow by just sitting there in a bank account. I say, no it may appear to do that but the reality is somewhat different and depends upon the whole series of social processes & relations that go on 'behind the backs of producers' that allow it to be used as capital to appropriate surplus value and then capture a share of that surplus value as interest which is then added back to the bank account which makes it looks like it has grown by just sitting there.

You are conflating appearance & reality (in relation to money) by attributing the appearance with the reality - that's your empiricism.

You'll have to make a more convincing attempt than the above i'm afraid.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 9, 2013)

> And thing is, it's not me who attributes power to signs (money), it's you. You're always going on about how it can grow by doing nothing and i'm always pointing out that this is you falling for the 'ultimate fetish' as Marx called it.


 
Good point. Phil and Jazzz, you fetishise money more than any of the rest of us. Ironic, really.


----------



## love detective (Apr 9, 2013)

In some ways it's 'natural' to fetishise money in this way - Marx was at pains to point out how mystifying and fetish like it appeared to be, and that




			
				Chapter 24 Volume 3 Capital said:
			
		

> The relations of capital assume their most externalised and most fetish-like form in interest-bearing capital....
> 
> ....Capital appears as a mysterious and self-creating source of interest — the source of its own increase. The thing (money, commodity, value) is now capital even as a mere thing, and capital appears as a mere thing. The result of the entire process of reproduction appears as a property inherent in the thing itself. In interest-bearing capital, therefore, this automatic fetish, self-expanding value, money generating money, are brought out in their pure state and in this form it no longer bears the birth-marks of its origin. The social relation is consummated in the relation of a thing, of money, to itself. Instead of the actual transformation of money into capital, we see here only form without content.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good point. Phil and Jazzz, you fetishise money more than any of the rest of us. Ironic, really.


The nature of money and banking affects utterly dominates our lives. It is really worth having a think about it. At the moment we have this thread about money compared to thirty threads about an old woman who recently died. If you understand money you understand that should be the other way around.

And such an interest in the topic has nothing to do with desiring personal riches let's be very clear about that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 10, 2013)

Thing is, I think I have a pretty good handle on what money is and how it is produced. I've attempted to outline my understanding of it in this thread.

And I think you neglect to consider that which the symbol symbolises. You look at the symbol and try to work out how that symbol is manipulated without considering the reason the symbol exists in the first place. Banks extend lines of credit _in response to demand for loans_. Examining this bit - how and why that demand is created - is utterly crucial. It anchors your analysis to the real world and shows you the real-world causes and consequences of the manipulation of money.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 10, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, I think I have a pretty good handle on what money is and how it is produced. I've attempted to outline my understanding of it in this thread.


And I've proved your understanding to be incorrect, by noting that when banks borrow from each other, they are borrowing 'cash'. Neither you nor love-detective has denied this. What you believe is happening is full-reserve banking.



> And I think you neglect to consider that which the symbol symbolises. You look at the symbol and try to work out how that symbol is manipulated without considering the reason the symbol exists in the first place. Banks extend lines of credit _in response to demand for loans_. Examining this bit - how and why that demand is created - is utterly crucial. It anchors your analysis to the real world and shows you the real-world causes and consequences of the manipulation of money.


Without new loans providing broad money our money supply contracts as existing loans are repaid. i.e., we run out of money. So of course there's a demand for more debt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 11, 2013)

I don't think it's as simple as 'of course'. Economies can run with hugely different levels of debt - ranging from around 50 percent gdp in many places to 400 percent in many of the richest industrialised countries. And those debt levels can go up or down, can be concentrated at the state, household or private business level.

So what does it mean for a country to have huge debt levels? And how is it that huge debt levels can be maintained without this causing inflation? That has to do with the nature of the loans being taken out - in particular, their time duration - which in turn is an expression of the kinds of promises that are being made within the economy.

Other questions might arise from examining places with lower debt levels, and so a smaller quantity of money in the system. How often does that money change hands? Money can change hands without new debt being taken out, or it can change hands with new debt being taken out - but the underlying event in the real economy may be identical. So the way money is used is also crucial to understanding the workings of an economy.


As for what you say about 'borrowing cash', you appear to be stuck on this point. If you lend me £10 by handing me a £10 note, I am 'borrowing cash' from you. So I give that note to someone else in return for something - 'spend it' - but after I've done that, I'm left with my £10 debt to you, my 'liability'. This is what is happening when banks 'borrow cash' from other banks. As with all debt, it is only ever taken out by someone wishing to spend it instantly.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As for what you say about 'borrowing cash', you appear to be stuck on this point. If you lend me £10 by handing me a £10 note, I am 'borrowing cash' from you. So I give that note to someone else in return for something - 'spend it' - but after I've done that, I'm left with my £10 debt to you, my 'liability'. This is what is happening when banks 'borrow cash' from other banks. As with all debt, it is only ever taken out by someone wishing to spend it instantly.


I am a bit puzzled as to what point you are making.

Suppose I lent you £100 for safekeeping (you give me the receipt, i.e. equivalent to demand IOU). Now you have a friend who is in trouble and wants the £100, he will give you back £150 in a week's time if you do. So you gamble and lend him the £100, hoping that I won't call in my money. It works, and in a week you are fine and can pay yourself a hefty bonus. You have just operated as a fractional reserve bank. _They are all, essentially, continually making this gamble on a much bigger scale_.

Also note, when banks make loans, they might very well be drawn on to pay someone else with an account at the same bank in which case no cash moves anywhere.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 13, 2013)

And again I draw your attention to a symmetry argument. The high st banks are all doing the same thing. They are all loaning out more than their cash. And at any time, in the interbank lending, one bank is a net creditor to the others. So that bank has loaned out far more than it has in cash, and it hasn't borrowed a penny from the other banks to do it.

Again disproving your statement




			
				littlebabyjesus said:
			
		

> _The bit you're missing here is that only 3% of the bank's loans might be covered by cash, but that other 97% has to be covered by borrowing. This is simply a factually correct statement._


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 13, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I am a bit puzzled as to what point you are making.
> 
> Suppose I lent you £100 for safekeeping (you give me the receipt, i.e. equivalent to demand IOU). Now you have a friend who is in trouble and wants the £100, he will give you back £150 in a week's time if you do. So you gamble and lend him the £100, hoping that I won't call in my money. It works, and in a week you are fine and can pay yourself a hefty bonus. You have just operated as a fractional reserve bank. _They are all, essentially, continually making this gamble on a much bigger scale_.
> 
> Also note, when banks make loans, they might very well be drawn on to pay someone else with an account at the same bank in which case no cash moves anywhere.


 

You've just torpedoed your own argument.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 13, 2013)

You have the process backwards. My friend comes to me and asks me for £100, promising to pay me back £150 in a week. So I come to you with the following proposal: if you lend me £100, I'll pay you back £110 a week later. I explain the deal my friend has offered to me. I've done this kind of thing many times before, and it's always worked out well, so you agree, and give me the £100, which I then pass on immediately to my friend.

More realistically, my friend promises to pay me £10 per week for 15 weeks. I borrow the initial £100 from ten people, £10 each, promising to pay them £0.20 per week in interest, but I don't require any of them to leave the money there for the full 15 weeks - in theory, they can withdraw it at any time. As long as my friend is paying me the £10 per week, I can cover the odd person demanding some of their money back, but I'm in trouble if they all come for their money at the same time. And I have data from the past that allows me to predict the behaviour of a large group of savers with a reasonable degree of confidence.

More realistically still, I borrow according to a mix of promises, borrowing one lot of £10 for the full 15 weeks, and paying £0.50 per week in interest for that promise. That gives me more leeway in covering the other £90 that I borrow in an on-instant-demand way.

This is what banks do. It is how they make their money. Get the mix wrong, and they are in trouble. Have lenders lose confidence in the ability of borrowers to pay back their loans, and they are in trouble. Have lenders lose confidence in the value of assets put up as security for long-term loans, and they are in trouble.

This is not in any way full-reserve banking. At any one time, the bank does not have anything near the cash to cover its liabilities, but it knows that as long as the economy is functioning reasonably well, the numbers of people withdrawing their money will be relatively low. People do withdraw their money eventually, of course, which means that banks must constantly be looking to replace lost deposits. It is an ongoing process - at the start of a day, you have £100 in deposits, during that day, two people withdraw £10 and two other people deposit £10, so at the end of the day you still have £100 in deposits.

But this brings us right back to the sticking point, the point of fact that you don't accept: at all times, assets must be backed by equal deposits. And a loan from another bank is just that - a loan. It isn't a benevolent transfer of cash reserves.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 13, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have the process backwards. My friend comes to me and asks me for £100, promising to pay me back £150 in a week. So I come to you with the following proposal: if you lend me £100, I'll pay you back £110 a week later. I explain the deal my friend has offered to me. I've done this kind of thing many times before, and it's always worked out well, so you agree, and give me the £100, which I then pass on immediately to my friend.


This is full-reserve banking. There is no additional money in circulation. You are able to meet your liabilities _as they fall due_. Your friend's deposit is a time deposit.



> More realistically, my friend promises to pay me £10 per week for 15 weeks. I borrow the initial £100 from ten people, £10 each, promising to pay them £0.20 per week in interest, but I don't require any of them to leave the money there for the full 15 weeks - in theory, they can withdraw it at any time. As long as my friend is paying me the £10 per week, I can cover the odd person demanding some of their money back, but I'm in trouble if they all come for their money at the same time. And I have data from the past that allows me to predict the behaviour of a large group of savers with a reasonable degree of confidence.
> 
> More realistically still, I borrow according to a mix of promises, borrowing one lot of £10 for the full 15 weeks, and paying £0.50 per week in interest for that promise. That gives me more leeway in covering the other £90 that I borrow in an on-instant-demand way.
> 
> ...


Indeed, these examples are not full-reserve banking. In each case, you are not able to meet your liabilities _as they fall due. _You are trading while insolvent, and if it was any other business than a bank, you could rightly be wound up. As I have already said, the banks _are continually gambling_ that 'the run' will not occur. In this they are helped enormously by the guarantees given by the government to depositors. These guarantees are worth fantastic amounts of money to the banks.

Although these are examples of fractional reserve behaviour, they mask the full reality, which is really that banks create money out of thin air. If you wish to take the model of a deposit being loaned and reloaned out as it circulates around the banking system - as described in modern money mechanics - then please note that after a few rounds, it has multiplied into several demand deposits, crucially all of which can and may well circulate simultaneously; whereas it is just not possible for your ten-pound note to pay five people at the same time. I say it is far more accurate to simply regard the new loan - the new demand deposit - as new (broad) money which has been created.

And this is how banks make their money. They are getting a cut of pretty much every pound in circulation!



> But this brings us right back to the sticking point, the point of fact that you don't accept: at all times, assets must be backed by equal deposits. And a loan from another bank is just that - a loan. It isn't a benevolent transfer of cash reserves.


I am genuinely puzzled as to what you are saying in the first part or what the point is in the second.


----------



## yield (Apr 14, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> ...they mask the full reality, which is really that banks create money out of thin air.





yield said:


> "Banks create money out of nothing" - Guardian
> 
> 
> love detective said:
> ...


Well?


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 14, 2013)

yield said:


> Well?


These are really quite facile questions the essential point of which I have answered many times.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 14, 2013)

Result for Conrad Jones in getting the BBC to admit it's Robert Peston video on banking was nonsense:



> *How do banks work?, bbc.co.uk: Finding by the Editorial Complaints Unit*
> 
> *Complaint*
> The item was a video extract from a BBC3 programme directed at a young audience. In the video, the BBC’s Business Editor sought to explain, in appropriately simplified terms, the principles of banking and the role played by banking in relation to the global credit crunch. A viewer complained that it gave a misleading impression of the way banks work (by failing to note their role as creators of credit) and of the causes of the global financial crisis.
> ...


 
*BBC admitted their video “How do Banks Work?” was misleading*


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 14, 2013)

Its not like Positive Money don't have form for selective quoting now is it.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2013)

Zeitgeist conspiraloons infiltrating the student movement  http://anticuts.com/2013/04/19/no-t...support-for-zeitgeist-at-nus-lgbt-conference/


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Zeitgeist conspiraloons infiltrating the student movement  http://anticuts.com/2013/04/19/no-t...support-for-zeitgeist-at-nus-lgbt-conference/


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Zeitgeist conspiraloons infiltrating the student movement  http://anticuts.com/2013/04/19/no-t...support-for-zeitgeist-at-nus-lgbt-conference/


 
fuck these cunts. fuck it all.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

NUS what a fucking disgrace, completely in bed with management, many of them are just self serving bureaucrats trying to further their careers on a minimum of legitimacy (there was what about a hundred votes at one student election out of a population of over a thousand at my uni?)


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> NUS what a fucking disgrace, completely in bed with management, many of them are just self serving bureaucrats trying to further their careers on a minimum of legitimacy (there was what about a hundred votes at one student election out of a population of over a thousand at my uni?)


 
I still can't believe that they voted in favour of not campaigning on tuition fees *and* EMA. Student politicians in the main are just awful, willing to sell out their principles (if they had any in the first place) in their early 20s for a whiff of a Labour safe seat.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I still can't believe that they voted in favour of not campaigning on tuition fees *and* EMA. Student politicians in the main are just awful, willing to sell out their principles (if they had any in the first place) in their early 20s for a whiff of a Labour safe seat.


 
yeah and perpetuating the organisation. sorry i'm really down on them in general they did absolutely nothing for me as a student and stopped my mate putting on any kind of decent music events, they're basically indistinguishable from management in a lot of unis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2013)

They are there

a) looks good on the CV for future

b) drinking club

c) rubber stamping stuff from on high, which chimes perfectly with point A


Their proudest boast down my one was getting our small campus fitted with a cashpoint. Vive la fuckin revolucion


----------



## Favelado (Apr 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I still can't believe that they voted in favour of not campaigning on tuition fees *and* EMA. Student politicians in the main are just awful, willing to sell out their principles (if they had any in the first place) in their early 20s for a whiff of a Labour safe seat.


 
Is that true? They didn't campaign on either of those issues? Fucking hell. Just disband then.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

one of them iirc stood on a platform of "vote for me and i'll get you free drinks in the bar". no, fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> one of them iirc stood on a platform of "vote for me and i'll get you free drinks in the bar". no, fuck off.


 


you can see the beer hall putsch forming in his mind 'You've had your free beer and bread rolls'...


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> you can see the beer hall putsch forming in his mind 'You've had your free beer and bread rolls'...


 
Now it's time for the circus! He said, brandishing a whip. . .


----------



## rekil (May 17, 2013)

Law Society Of Ireland on the Freemen Of The Land.



> “These guys are liable to get a lot of vulnerable people into trouble."
> 
> Earlier this week, Francis Cullen, a businessman from Clonard, Co Wexford, who was adjudicated a bankrupt in July 2011, was returned to Mountjoy Prison after telling High Court judge Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne he didn’t recognise her authority. He referred to himself as Francis of the Clan Cullen and, according to the court’s official who deals with bankruptcy cases, Chris Lehane, every time he corresponded with Mr Cullen he received a bill “to be paid in gold” for “using his name”. He had been in prison for contempt of court since February.
> 
> Barrister Andrew Robinson, who has defended homeowners in the High Court, said of the freemen: “To hold yourself out as knowing some kind of secret formula and something about the legal system and then to take a vulnerable person who is facing losing their home or getting a judgment against them and to purport to tell them how they can conduct themselves in court is an appalling thing.”


 
(Dunno if this is the correct thread for this)


----------



## kavenism (May 17, 2013)

> He referred to himself as Francis of the Clan Cullen and, according to the court’s official who deals with bankruptcy cases, Chris Lehane, every time he corresponded with Mr Cullen he received a bill “*to be paid in gold” for “using his name”*. He had been in prison for contempt of court since February.



If only they could just find those Barons to overthrow the Queen.


----------



## kavenism (May 17, 2013)

Just looking at the Freeman board on Icke's site there was a surprisingly clear (although no less paranoid) discussion on the idea of self and world ownership. Some twitchy fellow was apparently worried that on receiving a vaccination the government would then have a claim to his body! But in the ensuing discussion on the legal distinction between self-ownership and ownership of property someone posted this.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/18.html

It’s hilarious, seems like the OB were trying to do someone for possession of an imitation firearm that was in fact the persons hand! Conviction was quashed.


----------



## love detective (May 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> It’s hilarious, seems like the OB were trying to do someone for possession of an imitation firearm that was in fact the persons hand! Conviction was quashed.


 
Pretty surreal some of that



> The Crown argument, however, depends on the contrary, untenable, proposition that, when carrying out the robbery, the appellant had his own fingers in his possession


 


> Is that a gun in your pocket or are you purposively constructive?


 
Also this:-



> One cannot possess something which is not separate and distinct from oneself. An unsevered hand or finger is part of oneself


 
clears up the abortion debate as well, an unborn foetus can't be considered anything other than part of a woman's body, so she can do what she wants with it :-

also suggests wage-labour should be made illegal, as if the labour power of labour is not considered to be in the possession of labour then it really shouldn't be getting sold to capital - capital is buying something that is not in the possession of labour to sale


----------



## kavenism (May 17, 2013)

love detective said:


> also suggests wage-labour should be made illegal, as if the labour power of labour is not considered to be in the possession of labour then it really shouldn't be getting sold to capital - capital is buying something that is not in the possession of labour to sale


 
Ah but labour power is an externalisation which produces something new and separate from the barer of that power. It would be a fairly crude materialism that claimed the status of substance for surplus value. I think I heard it rationalised that surplus value is abstract until the point of exchange at which time it is concretised in its money form, but it’s never something you “own” per se. Or something like that anyway.


----------



## love detective (May 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Ah but labour power is an externalisation which produces something new and separate from the barer of that power.


 
but capital doesn't buy from labour the thing that labour produces, it buys labour power, it buys the potential for externalisation, it doesn't buy the externalisaiton

labour power as sold to capital is not at that point an externalisation, it's an internalisation, it is merely potential


----------



## kavenism (May 17, 2013)

love detective said:


> but capital doesn't buy from labour the thing that labour produces, it buys labour power, it buys the potential for externalisation, it doesn't buy the externalisaiton
> 
> labour power as sold to capital is not at that point an externalisation, it's an internalisation, it is merely potential


 
I’m not convinced of the soundness of a materialsm that allows either the ownership or sale of a potential power. I think in Marx it’s the category of abstract labour as measured by time which is in theory “sold”. But this only realises itself concretely as an externalisation in those products of labour. To see it otherwise just doesn’t make sense. You’d have to account for the appearance of quantity from something potential and abstract, and cover how the loss or alienation of a thing still leaves the same potential quantity of that thing in the bearer.


----------



## love detective (May 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I’m not convinced of the soundness of a materialsm that allows either the ownership or sale of a potential power.


there's no contradiction, it's the very basis of the purchase and sale of use values as commodities

just like any other commodity - the purchase of labour power, as a commodity, by capital is done to ultimately access the use value of it (in the case of labour power the use value is the very peculiar type that allows, potentially, more value than it contains to be created)

and just like any other commodity, the use value of a commodity is only realised upon the actual consumption of the commodity (productive consumption in the case of labour power and MOP)

therefore at the point of purchase of any commodity (labour power included), the use value is still only potential use value and not realised. Only when the commodity is consumed (productive consumption in the case of labour power & MOP) is the use value truly accessed and realised. Up until that point of consumption it remains only potential. If consumption does not occur for whatever reason, the use value is not realised.



> I think in Marx it’s the category of abstract labour as measured by time which is in theory “sold”. But this only realises itself concretely as an externalisation in those products of labour.


 
Abstract labour in Marx's terms has nothing (directly) to do with the exchange of labour power for money between labour and capital though. The occurrence of the later does not guarantee the existence or 'production' of the former. 

Also, abstract labour represents the value of the commodity produced by labour, i.e. it includes the surplus value element. Capital does not pay for surplus value, so you can't say that it is abstract labour that is 'sold' to Capital. To assert this would mean profit would be impossible as labour would receive the full value of what it produced (as opposed to receiving the full value of what is required to (re)produce it/labour power)



> You’d have to account for the appearance of quantity from something potential and abstract, and cover how the loss or alienation of a thing still leaves the same potential quantity of that thing in the bearer.


 
not sure I understand exactly what you're getting at here, but the reproduction of labour power in capitalist society (through wage-labour itself and subsequent consumption of MOC on the part of labour) is exactly how the loss or alienation of a thing (labour power) still leaves the same potential quantity of that thing (labour power) in the bearer (labour). And this applies both at the individual level on a daily basis (until the person dies/retires/can't reproduce the capacity to renew labour power anymore) and also at the societal level through the reproduction of labour power over generations


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is also disputed that the deposit comes first. Endogenous theorists claim that it doesn't - and that the system of overnight interbank lending provides cover for this - as long as the system is functioning, the 'loan-first' nature of the business can be obscured.



On this issue (old post, I know), the Bank of England have just released a paper on how money is created.



> In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank
> deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often
> misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial
> banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it
> ...





eta: sorry if dragging up this old thread is the equivalent to lobbing a stink-bomb into a crowded steam room. I suspect any kerfuffle that might ordinarily ensue will be dampened by the absence on the boards of certain usual suspects.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 24, 2014)

Hardly qualifies as a 'loon theory' but the Beeb have just done a 'Minsky might have had a point about the origins of financial crises' article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680993


----------



## yield (Mar 25, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Hardly qualifies as a 'loon theory' but the Beeb have just done a 'Minsky might have had a point about the origins of financial crises' article.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680993


Have you heard of a man called Minsky?

A fair overview I thought. Still relavent as none of the lessons of 2008 have been learnt and the debts have been socialised. Kicking the can down the road.

The stock markets are back at their highs due to interest rates being below inflation. I reckon there'll be a correction within the next six months.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Mar 25, 2014)

yield said:


> Have you heard of a man called Minsky?
> 
> A fair overview I thought. Still relavent as none of the lessons of 2008 have been learnt and the debts have been socialised. Kicking the can down the road.
> 
> The stock markets are back at their highs due to interest rates being below inflation. I reckon there'll be a correction within the next six months.



Not sure about there being a 'correction'. The word kind of implies some sort of natural equilibrium from which the economy has diverted. Something I'm not sure I'm on boArd with.

Nevertheless, I reckon post Keynesians like minsky have a point with regard to private debt levels. Any crisis will be when unemployment drops below 7% and the Bank of England put up interest rates if you ask me.

Why would you say six months?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 25, 2014)

Only took them six years to find out about Minsky.

IMO the credit crunch was a bit of an acid test for economic theories. Either theorists predicted it (as Minsky did, and so did many Marxists) and so are still credible, or they didn't (like Bernake and most people at the IMF/World Bank) in which case their ideas must be ditched as wrong.

As Steve Keen (something of a Minskyist) has pointed out, much mainstream economic theorising pre-credit crunch considered that debt levels were entirely irrelevant!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 25, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Not sure about there being a 'correction'. The word kind of implies some sort of natural equilibrium from which the economy has diverted. Something I'm not sure I'm on boArd with.
> 
> Nevertheless, I reckon post Keynesians like minsky have a point with regard to private debt levels. Any crisis will be when unemployment drops below 7% and the Bank of England put up interest rates if you ask me.
> 
> Why would you say six months?


Yeah, you still hear economists coming out with this 'correction' stuff. There's precious little evidence for it - it's a leap of faith rather than some scientific idea.


----------



## yield (Mar 25, 2014)

cynicaleconomy said:


> Not sure about there being a 'correction'. The word kind of implies some sort of natural equilibrium from which the economy has diverted. Something I'm not sure I'm on boArd with.


It's just business speak for a crash. That's what I thought anyway?


cynicaleconomy said:


> Nevertheless, I reckon post Keynesians like minsky have a point with regard to private debt levels. Any crisis will be when unemployment drops below 7% and the Bank of England put up interest rates if you ask me.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26153122


> The Bank's rate policy will now be determined not just by unemployment, but by a wider range of indicators.





cynicaleconomy said:


> Why would you say six months?


The US Federal Reserve are going to keep cutting the stimulus / quantitative easing.


----------



## JimW (Mar 25, 2014)

Saw this on Doug Henwood's twitter, him reviewing Piketty's _Capital in the Twenty-First Century_:



> The core message of this enormous and enormously important book can be delivered in a few lines: Left to its own devices, wealth inevitably tends to concentrate in capitalist economies. There is no “natural” mechanism inherent in the structure of such economies for inhibiting, much less reversing, that tendency. Only crises like war and depression, or political interventions like taxation (which, to the upper classes, would be a crisis), can do the trick. And Thomas Piketty has two centuries of data to prove his point...
> 
> ...
> There’s another trend that intensifies the upward concentration of wealth: Fortunes themselves are ratcheting upward; within the proverbial 1 percent, the 0.1 percent are doing better than the remaining 0.9 percent, and the 0.01 percent are doing better than the remaining 0.09 percent, and so on. The bigger the fortune, the higher the return. Piketty makes this point by looking not only at individual portfolios but also (and ingeniously) at US university endowments, for which decades of good data exist. The average American university endowment enjoyed an average real return—after accounting for management costs—of 8.2 percent a year between 1980 and 2010. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, in a class by themselves (with endowments in the $15–$30 billion range), got a return of 10.2 percent a year. From that lofty peak, the average return descends with every size class, from 8.8 percent for endowments of more than $1 billion down to 6.2 percent for those under $100 million. In short: Money breeds money, and the more money there is, the more prolific the breeding...


Thought it would be of interest here and this seems a reasonable thread to stick it in. Anyone read the Piketty book?


----------

