RE: So what's your plan? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SternSkipper -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/1/2011 10:28:43 AM)

quote:

We're gonna hold a vote on that, right? Cuz I gotta tell ya.........


Which? the town clerk's job?





mnottertail -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/1/2011 10:30:13 AM)

Yeah, that's a little more than a sub-entry level. Need to have some sort of merit system.




SternSkipper -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/1/2011 11:24:10 AM)

quote:

Need to have some sort of merit system


Sure , if he shuts the fuck up, we'll make him chief of police after a while. Shit man, I just found out he's a San Diegan  But if that Robert Reich of skinflints rap keeps up, dog catcher is lookin' mighty good at this point.
Or were you talking about yourself? Cause I have a cabinet post picked out for you. Secretary of WTF?????




Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/1/2011 7:31:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Well, he's wrong.

My state jumped on the shovel-ready thing and got to work.


He's wrong about most things, but not that one. Do an accounting of what those "shovel ready things" cost compared to the jobs created.

Who cares? It was work that needed to get done and was waiting for funding. Along came Obama with money to fund them. So we got to work.

I'm pretty sure workers did the work. Whether this created jobs or retained jobs or paid overtime, I don't much care. All money into the economy.




xssve -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/2/2011 2:57:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Let's keep this in the positive solution vein.

I'd be behind investing in infrastructure repair. It would also create some short term jobs.


"Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus

Incidentally, simply cutting taxes contributed to getting us into this mess.

As it is, the economy for the upper class is going just fine, and we've had steady positive growth--using Real GDP as a measure, the economy recovered long ago, growing since the last quarter of 2008 and in positive territory from the third quarter of 2009 on.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Doing more of what got us here isn't the answer.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Well, he's wrong.

My state jumped on the shovel-ready thing and got to work.





Here's 3 Billion we could get back right now...

With the economy cooling off, CLO's will do the same thing CMO's did Four years ago - Goldman is almost surely poised to cash in on that, and end up owning all the fucking banks.

Did I mention financial fucking reform in my prescription?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/2/2011 3:25:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Did I mention financial fucking reform in my prescription?



LMAO. $3 billion? Compared to the scam that Geithner and Paulson ran on Congress thats chump change. The financial reform thats needed is to get the government the fuck out of finances.




Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/2/2011 8:35:11 PM)

quote:

Here's 3 Billion we could get back right now...


I'd rather we got back the over $56 billion annually we blow on the Department of Homeland Theater.




Termyn8or -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/2/2011 8:49:13 PM)

I have refrained from responding because you already know what my plan is, and it will come to pass without any action on my part. You goats go chase the oats. It's not for me.

You know what I mean but you are too afraid to think about it.

And you know it. Nothing personal, but that is true.

T^T




Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/3/2011 6:33:59 AM)


Not even close. But point is, here's the thing...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Certainly everyone agrees we face financial challenges, even as people disagree about the specifics and the causes.

Let's get out of that. What are your solutions?

Please--I don't mean vague "do something about those sonnabitches" rants, nor do I mean things that just aren't feasible, whether physically or politically at this point. I mean from where we actually are, practical steps toward solutions. Things we can actually do, that will actually address the challenges.

What's your plan?







Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/3/2011 9:54:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

We're gonna hold a vote on that, right? Cuz I gotta tell ya.........


Which? the town clerk's job?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, that's a little more than a sub-entry level. Need to have some sort of merit system.

You know, this gets me thinking....

A town clerk, a sub, for entry, with merit....

Let's vote.




Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/4/2011 9:40:11 AM)

subfever? You coming back to finish this discussion?

Thanks.




subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/4/2011 7:47:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

sub, these are off-topic, as they speak not to plans to resolve the matter, but rather debates about the monetary system, one topic I'm weary of discussing, because I just keep explaining the same things endlessly while most simply disregard the explanations (vs. disputing them). But since this is the first time you've asked me, here, and I'll keep it brief.

The first question you can Google easily yourself. There's roughly $900 billion in currency, $1 trillion in money (you can parse out M1, M2, M3 and M4 yourself if you like--it won't change the point here), and $14 trillion in debt. We've also $15 trillion in GDP annually--1/5 of the world's economy.

If you mean the "monetary-economic" system, then you're wrong. You're talking about capitalism and how it distributes resources. You're not speaking of monetary issues at all, except incidentally--i.e., you're confusing the measure with the substance.

And of course money is created as debt--if you truly mean money creation through fractional banking, which you mention nowhere else. If you're thinking that we print money and that's money creation, you're off base (other than the Fed purchasing Treasury securities, which is only a small part of increasing the money supply).

As for an "invalid" money supply, that just makes no sense. What's "invalid" about it? It serves as a unit of accounting, medium of exchange, and store of value. That's its job. The Fed ensures there's enough money supply to facilitate commerce, but not too much (which would be absorbed as inflation).

Your Great Depression question is simple--yes, all the resources are still there, but they aren't circulating. That's what an economy is. If tomorrow, we all decided we have what we need and stopped producing and selling, we'd all have the same stuff, but the economy would be toast.

What I'm saying is that while I'm curious about your resource-based economy idea, instead of uncovering a practical plan, there appears, unless I'm misunderstanding you, to be some fundamental misunderstandings about the economy and how it functions.

If you can bring this around to some practical solutions/plans for the current situation, that would be great.




The point I was leading to with the money supply, is how it relates to the total debt. Since the debt well exceeds the money supply, and since money is also created as debt; how can the debt possibly be paid off?

What is invalid about the monetary system is its complete decoupling from the life sequence of value. Take my Great Depression point for example, when the resources, willing and able workers, and factories all still existed... but were rendered useless by the invalid nature of the monetary system. You claim that money does exactly what it is supposed to do. Well then, what specifically went wrong there?

I have no practical solutions for the current situation, other than to replace the monetary-economic paradigm with a resource-based economy. However, such change would be a vast departure from this system we all submit to... and most worship. Consequently, most people are initially unable to even conceive a world without money, or handle emotional fears related to the direct self-questioning of their own identities, egos, and potential loss of their perceived advantages over others. This being the case, it then stands to reason that they would also be unable to intellectually support such a concept. After all, one needs to have their emotions in check, before they can move forward intellectually.

A quick look around me makes it clear that most people still adhere to the absurd notion that all we need to do is get the right guys in office and either tweak-left or tweak-right (depending upon their political persuasion). They still don’t understand that the problem is systemic. Until we raise the collective consciousness of the masses beyond this absurdity, discussions about getting from Point A to Point B will be nothing more than another exercise in futility… like most of the left vs right threads we see here and on other forums.

This thread has been somewhat of a departure from the futility norm, thanks to your careful and respectful moderation. You’ve also exhibited more patience than what we typically see around here. Consequently, I don't wish to derail your thread by encouraging discussion of whether or not the problem itself is systemic, if you prefer to restrict this thread to ideas about how to fix a system I see as utterly corrupt and obsolete. This doesn't mean that we couldn't discuss it elsewhere, however.




subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/4/2011 9:41:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I have refrained from responding because you already know what my plan is, and it will come to pass without any action on my part. You goats go chase the oats. It's not for me.

You know what I mean but you are too afraid to think about it.

And you know it. Nothing personal, but that is true.

T^T


This looks worthy of its own thread, if it doesn't fit within the parameters that Mm has asked for.




Edwynn -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/4/2011 10:51:02 PM)


Let's just go down the road with this.

In the first place, you have overlooked the fact that technology accounts for diminishing resources by way of doing more with less. That will only further whatever cause as time goes on.


No argument here that a good many have been shortchanged in the process. But let us then visit things as to how it actually works.

Power seeks Power.

That has always been and will forever be.

Take whatever societal or economic layabout you might like, but the 'nobility' will always find itself were it matters.

That is unless you provide some instance in history where this has not been the case.







Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 4:38:42 AM)

quote:

The point I was leading to with the money supply, is how it relates to the total debt. Since the debt well exceeds the money supply, and since money is also created as debt; how can the debt possibly be paid off?


See, this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Commerce well exceeds the money supply too, so how can there be commerce? Wealth vastly exceeds the money supply, so how can there be wealthy? You're confusing dollar denominated assets with money, and money with the economy.

I'm running out for the day, so more later.




subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 9:56:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

The point I was leading to with the money supply, is how it relates to the total debt. Since the debt well exceeds the money supply, and since money is also created as debt; how can the debt possibly be paid off?


See, this is your fundamental misunderstanding. Commerce well exceeds the money supply too, so how can there be commerce? Wealth vastly exceeds the money supply, so how can there be wealthy? You're confusing dollar denominated assets with money, and money with the economy.

I'm running out for the day, so more later.


No problem Muse, I'll be leaving for the day myself soon. I'll further illustrate my perception of this one point alone, but hope that my other points won't get lost in the shuffle.

When Congress passes a bill and appropriates a certain amount of money, the cost is advanced to the Department of Treasury. The Treasury does not create money, but instead borrows it from the Federal Reserve System. Because the Federal Reserve is the only institution in the world which can legally create US Dollars, the federal government must borrow from it. When the Treasury borrows money from the Federal Reserve, that money is borrowed with interest.

After borrowing money with interest, this new money plus interest is then added to the total national debt. So at this point, the national debt now equals the total preexisting debt owed prior to this new loan, plus the new loan, plus interest on the whole shebang. This newly borrowed money is spent into the economy, whether for warfare, welfare, or whatever.

Unless financed privately by friends, family, street money, etc; consumers create new debt (and money) whenever they borrow money from banks through the Federal Reserve's fractional reserve system. Similiar to government borrowing, this newly borrowed money is then added to any preexisting debt, along with the obligation to repay all of this debt with interest.

If the United States government and its citizens collectively wanted to repay all debt, where would we acquire the money needed to do this? Sure, we may have plenty of wealth in paper-denominated or tangible assets, but these assets must first be converted into dollars before they can be used to repay loans.

The Federal Reserve is the only issuer of dollars/legal tender in the United States. Since all dollars are issued as debt, then even more money with interest must be borrowed from the very same system to which preexisting debt is originally owed. Therefore, if we collectively tried to repay our debt, how would we avoid a monetary contraction that would collapse the economy?





willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 10:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever



The point I was leading to with the money supply, is how it relates to the total debt. Since the debt well exceeds the money supply, and since money is also created as debt; how can the debt possibly be paid off?



What you may be missing is that because of the multiplier on bank deposits, there is the same multiplier on debt reduction.

EG. Someone is sitting with a $1,000 Treasury bond. Thanks to a budget surplus when that bond matures it doesnt need to be replaced. The owner of the bond deposits the $1,000 in his bank account. Due to fractional reserves that $1,000 deposit results in $10,000 available to the economy. That economic activity increases tax revenues, adding to the surplus and allowing more debt reduction from what essentially was that first $1,000. You dont need as much cash as there is debt to eliminate that debt in a fractional reserve system.




subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 10:29:17 AM)

quote:

What you may be missing is that because of the multiplier on bank deposits, there is the same multiplier on debt reduction.

EG. Someone is sitting with a $1,000 Treasury bond. Thanks to a budget surplus when that bond matures it doesnt need to be replaced. The owner of the bond deposits the $1,000 in his bank account. Due to fractional reserves that $1,000 deposit results in $10,000 available to the economy. That economic activity increases tax revenues, adding to the surplus and allowing more debt reduction from what essentially was that first $1,000. You dont need as much cash as there is debt to eliminate that debt in a fractional reserve system.


My understanding is this:

The $1000 Treasury bond in your example is a loan by an individual to the US Treasury. The Treasury pays the loan off, and the individual then takes his $1000 and deposits it into his account at the local bank.

Through the fractional reserve system, the individual's bank can, by way of the fractional reserve multiplier, loan someone else $900. That new borrower then deposits the $900 into his bank. His bank then loans someone else $810. That person then deposits the $810 into his bank. His bank then loans someone else $729. And so on and so forth, creating up to $10,000 of new money into the economy.

Nevertheless, this new money is still debt. So I still can't see how our collective debt can be repaid.

I do realize that our posts crossed, and you probably did not have the opportunity of seeing my prior post.





willbeurdaddy -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 10:41:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

What you may be missing is that because of the multiplier on bank deposits, there is the same multiplier on debt reduction.

EG. Someone is sitting with a $1,000 Treasury bond. Thanks to a budget surplus when that bond matures it doesnt need to be replaced. The owner of the bond deposits the $1,000 in his bank account. Due to fractional reserves that $1,000 deposit results in $10,000 available to the economy. That economic activity increases tax revenues, adding to the surplus and allowing more debt reduction from what essentially was that first $1,000. You dont need as much cash as there is debt to eliminate that debt in a fractional reserve system.


My understanding is this:

The $1000 Treasury bond in your example is a loan by an individual to the US Treasury. The Treasury pays the loan off, and the individual then takes his $1000 and deposits it into his account at the local bank.

Through the fractional reserve system, the individual's bank can, by way of the fractional reserve multiplier, loan someone else $900. That new borrower then deposits the $900 into his bank. His bank then loans someone else $810. That person then deposits the $810 into his bank. His bank then loans someone else $729. And so on and so forth, creating up to $10,000 of new money into the economy.

Nevertheless, this new money is still debt. So I still can't see how our collective debt can be repaid.

I do realize that our posts crossed, and you probably did not have the opportunity of seeing my prior post.




No, nothing in your transactions following the deposit of $1k involves creation of new money, its the same money recirculating. For there to be new money there would have to be a transaction with the Fed, and you didnt need any to grow the $1K into $10k.




subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/5/2011 11:56:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

Let's just go down the road with this.

In the first place, you have overlooked the fact that technology accounts for diminishing resources by way of doing more with less. That will only further whatever cause as time goes on.



If you mean that technology helps to offset diminishing resources by way of doing more with less, and will likely continue down this path as time goes on, I agree to a point. After all, even though it may not be sustainable, we do yield far more produce per acre than we did in the past.

I'm a huge proponent of technology if applied a sustainable manner, and without the cyclical consumption and planned obsolescence that we have today.

quote:

No argument here that a good many have been shortchanged in the process.


If you mean to say that many people have lost jobs due to advancing technology, I agree. However, I also believe that technology is going to be our evolution, and it should not be stifled to maintain obsolete jobs primarily for the purpose of supporting our current economic system.

quote:

But let us then visit things as to how it actually works. Power seeks Power. That has always been and will forever be.


I disagree that it will forever be. In the past, technology was limited. In the future, it will account for almost all means of production... if allowed to naturally eveolve. If indeed allowed to evolve to this point, the need for us to submit to labor in exchange for the money we currently need to buy essential goods will have become obsolete. When essential goods and services are provided to all at no cost, money itself will become obsolete; along with politicians, attorneys, bankers, insurance people, stock brokers, economists, hedge fund managers, etc.

quote:

Take whatever societal or economic layabout you might like, but the 'nobility' will always find itself were it matters.


Again I disagree. Once money becomes obsolete, the concept of property will become history. There will then be no means for nobility to take advantage of others. Our environment, and hence our conditioning, will change. People of the future will look back on us today, and wonder how we adhered for so long to the absurdities of competition and money, and all the grossly aberrated behavior that they cause.

We will either evolve or life as we know it will perish, for what we're doing now is not sustainable.

quote:

That is unless you provide some instance in history where this has not been the case.


Irrelevant. In the past, we also believed: the earth was flat, bleeding people for fevers was good medicine, mankind would never fly, etc.

The collective consciousness will get what it ultimately desires. Gandhi and MLK Jr proved this. It's up to the people. They will either enlighten, or they will continue down their conditioned paths towards competition, money, hunger, pollution, war, a diminishing standard of living for the majority, and the increasing aberrated behavior that will accompany all this. Down this path, the current system will either collapse and total chaos will ensue, or it will mutate into an Orwellian, global system of slavery to keep the crumbling and corrupt monetary-economic system afloat and the elite in power.

Note to Muse: I apologize if we're moving too far beyond your parameters here. We will move this elsewhere if you still want to adhere to your original OP.





Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875