Alternative Knowledge

[Ali]

My takeaway is that the answer is a little of both. While the explanation at first sounds like a firm contradiction, if you read the details, it's actually not that different.

Cool! I feel like this thread has veered wildly off topic into facts about the real world...

[Jack]

Did I just witness you all deciding that fractional reserve banking is a-ok because we were wrong about the level at which banks are allowed to generate money out of thin air, for no other reason than to maximise their profits? I guess that it also proved that central banks are not this planet's largest cancerous mass?

Ok then.

[Ali]

No way! I'm a socialist - not particularly keen on deregulated financial markets. It's just that, unlike the other things in this thread, the banking system does actually exist.

[Jack]

The sole issuers of money are private businesses operating for profit, and you think they should be regulated?

[Snarky]

Did I just witness you all deciding that fractional reserve banking is a-ok because we were wrong about the level at which banks are allowed to generate money out of thin air, for no other reason than to maximise their profits? I guess that it also proved that central banks are not this planet's largest cancerous mass?

I'd say you witnessed us discussing how the banking system actually works and what these talking point slogans mean more precisely, to facilitate reasonable argument rather than paranoid hysteria.

"Generate money out of thin air" sounds like a scam. But when you look at what it actually means: making a loan (and people considering their bank account balance to be the same as having cash) â€" it turns out that it's just another way to think about a completely routine activity. It's creating money in the same way as me borrowing 10 bucks from you in return for an IOU slip is creating money: others who know me might be willing to treat that slip as being worth $10 because they can always ask me to pay it back, and so it can be exchanged and traded among us just like a $10 bill. We have "created" $10. Are we then "a cancerous mass"?

BTW, you're conflating multiple separate issues together: fractional reserve banking, fiat money, and private ownership of central banks. I don't think that kind of ill-defined outrage is particularly helpful.

If we didn't have fractional reserve banking, if banks weren't allowed to invest or loan out any of the money people deposited, then they wouldn't really be banks, they'd just be warehouses for money. You wouldn't be getting any interest on your savings; instead you'd have to pay rent on the storage. And unless you knew a rich person or loan shark, you could never get a major loan. (In fact, strictly speaking you shouldn't be allowed to invest money you borrowed at all, because how is that different from the practice of fractional reserve banking?) So no startup loans for businesses, no mortgage, no student loans... If you can't fund it on the spot yourself, just forget about it!

There are many criticisms to be made of the financial systems and the current economic order, but to think that this would be better is far-fetched to say the least, IMO.

[Jack]

It's creating money in the same way as me borrowing 10 bucks from you in return for an IOU slip is creating money: others who know me might be willing to treat that slip as being worth $10 because they can always ask me to pay it back, and so it can be exchanged and traded among us just like a $10 bill. We have "created" $10. Are we then "a cancerous mass"?

What you just described is illegal, and that's my point. A small group have been given the right to create currency, which would make sense if they weren't a private business operating for profit.

You can generate money out of thin air.
You can charge people interest for the money you created.
You can force people to all use only your currency.

You can do these things separately, or two together. When you do all three together, that enslaves people to a monopoly.

[Ali]

What you just described is illegal, and that's my point. A small group have been given the right to create currency, which would make sense if they weren't a private business operating for profit.

It's not illegal just because you think it's wrong. Or because I think it's wrong. There are a variety of arguments in favour of banks extending credit in this way - credit can smooth out variations in income across individuals' lifetimes. Credit can facilitate investment in new (and therefore risky) business, science or technology.

You don't have to agree with those arguments, but do acknowledge them. The financial system may be amoral, irrational and rigged in favour of the wealthy. But what's the use of simplifying the issue in conspiratorial terms?

[Jack]

I was referring to the example of a private citizen issuing IOUs as promissory notes. It's illegal to create currency which would compete with the reserve bank's regional currency.

[Snarky]

It's illegal to create currency which would compete with the reserve bank's regional currency.

This is certainly not true in general. You think bitcoins, commissary accounts, traveler's checks, poker chips and airline miles are all illegal? Different laws and regulations may apply depending on the details (IOUs and promissory notes differ somewhat, mainly in that IOUs don't explicitly promise to pay back the debt), but as long as it's not used for money laundering or tax avoidance, as long as it's not claiming to be legal tender, and depending on whether and how it can be exchanged for legal tender, you're generally good to go. (If you start to engage in certain transactions or activities on a major scale, e.g. issuing loans to the general public, you'll eventually fall under banking or other financial regulation, naturally.)

If you think it's illegal to create currency to compete with legal tender, check out local currencies, digital currencies, virtual currencies, private currencies, complementary currencies, alternative currencies and scrip.

Edit: And since I see you're from South Africa, you might find this particularly relevant.

Edit 2: Presumably what you're referring to is this case, based on a statute that it's illegal to make or pass unauthorized metal coins "intended for use as current money." (Exactly what "current money" means is not entirely settled, but it's clear in the context of other laws that debts, promissory notes, IOUs etc. do not fall under this term. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is whether a naive person would say "this is a dollar" or "this is worth a dollar".) In that particular case, the currency was designed to be easily confused with US mint dollars, and intended to be used interchangeably with them.

[Jack]

So my practical alternatives are to go live in Orania (which is in no way independent from the rand, BTW), or see if anyone wants to trade land, or any other necessity, for the currency I just invented? The latter has a higher chance of success than wasting energy mining bitcoins for 20 years to do the same.

Yeah, this world is brimming with alternatives, none of which are of real use before first being converted to one of the central bank's currencies.

[Danvzare]

Yeah, this world is brimming with alternatives

Considering there are nearly 300 active currencies in the world, then the answer is yes. There are LOADS of alternatives.

[Jack]

The national central banks which don't have the same few 200-year-old banks as major shareholders can be counted on one hand. The recent expansionist wars by the US has cut that number in half, but surely that's just a coincidence.

300 currencies? For how many countries? Forced on how many people?

All paying ever-growing interest in perpetuity to the same few people.

But that's my problem, apparently. Because if you don't like your job flipping burgers with a degree, you can just quit, right? And if you don't like the fed, there's always the ECB. Don't like the democrats? Vote republican!

No, let's talk about the real issues, as seen on TV. Like how we're so overpopulated that every person on the planet can have ~1,000 m² on the Australian continent. Oh, wait, why don't we tax people for the weather?! Let's make the gas they exhale illegal and tax them for farts.

Carry on to your end.

[Snarky]

(which is in no way independent from the rand, BTW)

Oh, I see we're moving the goalposts again.

So my practical alternatives are to go live in Orania, or see if anyone wants to trade land, or any other necessity, for the currency I just invented? The latter has a higher chance of success than wasting energy mining bitcoins for 20 years to do the same.

Or you could buy bitcoins. Or you could create money the same way banks do, by lending. Or you could join the Glenn Beck brigade and put all your money into gold.

Yeah, this world is brimming with alternatives, none of which are of real use before first being converted to one of the central bank's currencies.

Not true. Gift cards, for example, are clearly "money" in the sense we're talking here, and you can do a hell of a lot with e.g. an Amazon gift card without converting it.

300 currencies? For how many countries? Forced on how many people?

All paying ever-growing interest in perpetuity to the same few people.

But that's my problem, apparently.

There's a real "render unto Caesar" argument to be made here...

What you seem to be demanding is that anyone should be able to create a widely adopted currency whenever they want, or be allowed to mint money as they like. Clearly that can't work, but that's the fault of logic and reality, not the banks.

No, let's talk about the real issues

Changing the topic, eh? Why am I not surprised?

Like how we're so overpopulated that every person on the planet can have ~1,000 m² on the Australian continent. Oh, wait, why don't we tax people for the weather?! Let's make the gas they exhale illegal and tax them for farts.

Is that climate change denialism I smell? Why, I believe it is! Well, I suppose this is the thread for it.

[Khris]

I can smell it, too. Fits like a glove.

[Danvzare]

Is that climate change denialism I smell? Why, I believe it is! Well, I suppose this is the thread for it.

I believe the general consensus for people who don't believe in global warming, is that climate change has more of an effect.
Which I usually take to mean that global warming exists, but not at the scale governments lead you to believe, because what they usually point at is actually climate change.

Or at least that's the impression I've built up over time.

Personally I think you'd have to be an idiot to deny that it's possible, simply because it's basic science. Just look at how an actual greenhouse works.
The argument they raise is that humans can't have that much of an impact. Which is hard to believe, considering we seem to be able to make a huge impact on everything else in the world, even driving animals to extinction.

[Jack]

Is that climate change denialism I smell? Why, I believe it is! Well, I suppose this is the thread for it.

Oh, right. Because there's just the MSM version, and any deviation from that involves UFOs. Get fluoridated much?

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

But why waste a good crisis on our march to being RFID chipped?

Anyway, just march on. If you can't see how infinite debt ensures perpetual slavery, there's probably not enough of a person left in you to even appreciate freedom.

[Scavenger]

Oh, right. Because there's just the MSM version, and any deviation from that involves UFOs. Get fluoridated much?

Oh my god water flouridation mind control as well? I can't wait for the Age of Aquarius, Sirius the Dog Star, and Dogon String Theory stuff to arrive too! Come on, let's do it! Let's bring in the god dang Abydos Machines, too!

Spoiler

[close]

Nevermind that that's clearly Ramses II's name poorly plastered over Seti I's, it LOOKS like a helicopter! And Mainstream Egyptology doesn't want you to believe that!! The truth is right in front of your eyes, but you're being lied to, for some reason that doesn't really make sense to anyone but a conspiracy theorist who presupposes that everyone is out to lie to them.

Seriously though, what possible reason would people have to lie about the human effects of climate change? The vast majority of greenhouse gasses are made by industries, which also produces a whole lot of toxic sludge alongside it in factories and stuff. The solution to climate change is the regulation and transformation of industry into something greener. That doesn't make money - that loses money. Nobody is making money in this situation. You can say "taxes" though really you can then use that to fund a national health service or something. Governments really shouldn't be in the money making business.

BUT!!!

Getting you to believe that climate change is fakey fake fake and that all these healthful exhaust gasses are GOOD for the earth instead? That makes industries lots of money. Just like when big tobacco companies hire fake scientists to say that cigarettes are good for you. They wanna sell you something. They want to reduce you to what you can provide in capital, and fuck your health and fuck your future.

Honestly if anyone's drinking the flouridated water, it's climate change deniers. There's nothin' but good that can come of making the world greener. There's nothing but bad to come from exploiting the earth further.

[Jack]

Pretty much all the studies done on fluoride consumption showed that it has negative effects on the brain and cognitive abilities.

See, this is my other point. I wrote but five sentences and nowhere said that climate change is fake, but somehow you had to invent my opinion for me. You saw the word fluoride, and went off like a gun. You just couldn't help but proudly display one of the 32 whole thoughts you are able to delineate. Never mind the facts.

Fractional reserve banking seems to make sense, if the reserve rate is set at a reasonable level, which is not the case in reality. A low reserve rate (or none, as some countries do) exists for no other reason than to increase the bank's profit. And no, I can't just "create money like a bank", because firstly, that IS illegal for private citizens, and is strictly regulated (to favour established banks), and secondly, because I am a wage slave like every other private citizen, and didn't inherit from my inbred trillionaire ancestors. Thanks mitt, you bloody moron. Fact is, some countries do get on well financially without giving their banks an unconscionable amount of control over the whole country, even when they do have sanctions against them. That is until they get invaded.

This is not even to mention central banks, which are private, and literally wish the money into existence, then charges us all interest for it. Debt which is now choking the world economy to death, and pushing us to world war.

But tell me again how I'm moving the goal posts for pointing out how the racist colony you suggested as an alternative is in no way independent from the reserve bank's hold, even though the whole town is situated on private property and is officially like a country of it's own. Whip out them gift cards as an example of how the bank appointed local currency has real competition. What the actual frak?

It's no surprise that people like you seek leadership, however corrupt, if that's how your brains work. Fluoride can't be responsible for all this, though. The US is actually one of very few that does it, as I recall, and let's just say the proof is in the pudding as far as that's concerned, but what's the rest of you's excuse?

[Ali]

As far as I can tell, no one on this thread is arguing that national and international banking systems are working well. We have stock market crashes every 10-15 years to remind us that they don't work properly.

I don't want to patronise you, but the problem with conspiratorial thinking is we can't talk about the very real problems of modern capitalism without fluoridation and climate change denial irrelevantly popping in. Conspiratorial thinking prefers explanations which are at a practical level unnecessarily complex and at an emotional level very simple and reassuring. Climate change is a scam - that would be nice wouldn't it? The world is run by evil lizards - well, at least it isn't (to borrow Alan Moore's term) rudderless. The financial system is in the hands of a secret cabal, rather than being full of chaos, conflict and contradiction.

Anyway, for a SERIOUS investigation of money & debt, Philomena Cunk asks the REAL questions. Like "when you have a coin, where is the money in that coin?":

[embed=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-YKw8w-e50[/embed]

[Snarky]

See, this is my other point. I wrote but five sentences and nowhere said that climate change is fake, but somehow you had to invent my opinion for me. You saw the word fluoride, and went off like a gun. You just couldn't help but proudly display one of the 32 whole thoughts you are able to delineate. Never mind the facts.

And yet it turns out that you are a climate change denier (or anthropogenic climate change skeptic, if you prefer) and do believe fluoridation is harmful, so those snap judgments were completely on the mark. Imagine that!

And no, I can't just "create money like a bank", because firstly, that IS illegal for private citizens, and is strictly regulated (to favour established banks),

Yeah, your unsubstantiated assertion is not going to cut it here. Also notice that the first part (it's illegal) and the second (it's strictly regulated) contradict each other.

It's certainly not illegal for private individuals to lend money, though there are often regulations on what sort of conditions are legal (to restrict usurers and loan sharks). And markets in lending are not restricted to banks; you have things like "hard money" (private lending) and peer-to-peer lending through exchanges.

We should also define the scope of discussion: to claim that something "is illegal" is pretty meaningless without specifying what jurisdiction you're talking about.

The claim that "only banks are allowed to create money" (i.e. lend) is pretty meaningless, since any individual or institution that starts lending money on a wide scale effectively becomes a bank. It's like complaining that parliament is full of politicians: well, duh!

But tell me again how I'm moving the goal posts for pointing out how the racist colony you suggested as an alternative is in no way independent from the reserve bank's hold, even though the whole town is situated on private property and is officially like a country of it's own. Whip out them gift cards as an example of how the bank appointed local currency has real competition. What the actual frak?

The question was whether actors other than the central bank could produce money. Clearly they can. For convenience, these tokens are typically fixed to (and often denominated in) some more widely-used currency, but this doesn't invalidate the central point.

If you're looking for a completely independent, free-floating currency, let's just repeat this one more time:

Bitcoin

It's no surprise that people like you seek leadership, however corrupt, if that's how your brains work. Fluoride can't be responsible for all this, though. The US is actually one of very few that does it, as I recall, and let's just say the proof is in the pudding as far as that's concerned, but what's the rest of you's excuse?

Yes, yes. You're the only smart person in the world and all the rest of us are idiots. You've said as much before. Let's just say that the discussion so far hasn't borne that out.