So you can't actually a simple question? Are you that clueless on basic political economy that you can't refer to what socialism means? This might explain your ridiculous comments mind you!
An ignorant comment. The capitalist achieves profit through underpayment of labour. And what is the value of a firm without labour? Think it through now! You have made such a big deal about morality. I liked that. That you then gag after one of the greatest imperialist that supported such severe human rights abuse only tells me that your rant has no value. Your opinions disgust me. You demonstrate the worst elements of fascism but can't even be arsed with being consistent.
I just did, several times, as you know perfectly well but have no choice but to deny, as you have nothing of substance to offer, never have, and never will. I just did, several times, as you know perfectly well but have no choice but to deny, as you have nothing of substance to offer, never have, and never will. <yawn> You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself in a most acrobatic and even borderline entertaining way. Somehow, your posts remind me of that old "Aristocrats" joke.
Dishonesty won't be celebrated. I'll try again. Please don't hide: You stated socialism was an "advocate of collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital), as any good dictionary would inform you". I asked you to refer to the economics! What does socialism mean? Refer to the political economic result.
The problem is that you can't actually embed any economics in your comment. You're left with morality grunt (and a bad one at that as you hero-worship someone that celebrated enslaving whole countries) This is a neat example of your lack of economic insight. You haven't been able to offer one genuine counter-argument. There were two elements to my comment. First, rents are generated through underpayment. This is accepted by both orthodox and heterodox economist (although they've argue the source and the vocab; one person's monopsonistic competition is another person's exploitation). Second, without labour, many firms will have little or negative value. Nature of sunk costs for you!
UG. Fractional reserve banking. An investor lends a bank some money. Examples: I deposit my wage check. The government lends some money it printed. The bank lends a fraction of this deposit out commercially. Typically up to 90%. That's it. Lesson over. Don't bother over complicating. The fractional reserve is the 10% of the deposit which the bank is not allowed by law to lend. Quite often to prove that this reserve is being held, a government requires the bank to deposit it in the federal reserve as part of the requirements to hold a banking lisence. And this can take the form of government bonds. The vast bulk of all bank lending is not money printed in the Fed it is customer deposits. Your wages. Your savings. Other peoples wages, other peoples savings. Shop takings. restaurant takings. Business takings.
As you know, I already did. Your claims are just false, absurd, and directly contradict indisputable fact. You are free to continue heaping disgrace on yourself by derogating Churchill because he told the truth about land and landowning. No, it proves that you have nothing to offer but uninformative grunt from long-dead Karl. No, I flat-out disproved your claims, and you had no answer but to change the subject, as usual. But there were zero factual ones. First, that claim is objectively false and absurd. Rents are generated through legal entitlements to deprive others of access to economic opportunities that would otherwise be accessible. When the publicly created market rent of locations is paid to the government and community that create them, no one is underpaid because everyone is paid commensurately with what they contribute. You are just objectively incorrect as usual. No, of course that is false. Another miracle of irrelevancy. Without land, labor would be non-existent. Nature of objective physical reality for you! See how easily I expose your anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-truth garbage for what it is?
Which you know absolutely nothing about. That money is used as reserves, not lent out. Flat false. Banks do not lend out customer deposits. They CREATE loan proceeds. Consult any accounting textbook that describes bank journal entries. And you failed. "The process by which banks create money is so simple, the mind is repelled." -- John K Galbraith Galbraith knew how banks create money. You do not. That's it. Lesson over. Flat wrong. Reserve requirements only mandate that the bank obtain reserves to match the money it CREATES by lending. It has nothing to do with "keeping back" a fraction of customer deposits. Again, any good accounting textbook (of which I have edited one, so don't even bother trying to go there) will inform your ignorance on this subject. You obviously know nothing whatever about it, including how to spell, "license." Wrong again. Banks DO NOT lend out customer deposits. That is a fairy tale. The money they lend is CREATED by the loan, as a deposit liability that balances the loan asset. Call up your local bank and ask the accountant. I DARE you.
You tried a dictionary definition. I've asked you to refer directly to the economics. Its not a difficult request (if you know some economics of course) Amusing that you go for a sub-Georgist routine on land and then, when referring to enslavement of whole countries, you're fine with it. I suppose that is bound to happen when you're completely reliant on morality rant. No Marxism has been mentioned. You'd know that if you knew any economics. Sounds like a dose of unconscious fraud! Rents are created through multiple mechanisms. Underpayment is one. Payment below the worker's worth is inefficient, by definition. There's no debate in it. Its accepted by both orthodox and heterodox schools. The problem of course is that you are completely ignorant of the labour market. That's a standard outcome for sub-Georgists mind you, so don't feel too bad. Chortle, chortle! You can't even muster economic blag. Again, I gave a factual comment. Neoclassical economics predicts underpayment because of the consequence of job search frictions. Institutionalists, in contrast, refer to how human resource management is used to minimise bargaining power (and maximise exploitation). You've gone off on one again, which doesn't surprise. Unlike you I can refer to economic analysis into socialism. Market socialism, for example, refers to how only SMEs can be private ownership. The issue then becomes: how are large corporations valued and how should investors be compensated. The traditional argument is that these firms have high value and therefore compensation will be restrictively high. That doesn't take into account that the value is reliant itself on labour.
It is always immeasurably reassuring to me when the opposition must constantly lie about what I have plainly written. It proves they are evil and I am good, with no further thought required. Oh, you know me better than that, child. And don't pretend you don't. No, I said a SOCIALIST was. Wrong noun. What do you call ownership of land and capital but a point of economics? Collective ownership of the means of production, as any good dictionary would inform you, if you were willing to be informed. You mean poverty, tyranny, corruption, injustice, misery, despair and death?
There is zero economics in your "you is evil you is" claptrap. Just amusing that you've been caught out singing the praises of someone who supported concentration camps.
This is the economics forum old son. The conspiracy theory forum is further down the page. Banking is simple. It's real money. It comes from real people and so.... you aren't morally allowed to steal it. Sorry. No matter how much bollocks you spew. Money is not created by a loan. The only place money is created, is in a mint. You are not qualified, you can't spell and you are very big on trying to prove yourself and very small on knowledge. Banks don't create anything, they are a middle man service. They connect lenders with borrowers for a fee. And really you can cry and fume and howl with each person who points your errors out to you, but ultimately, they will still be errors afterwards. Because you are such a total novice you can start with Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking Please don't waste anyone's time explaining why Wikipedia is wrong, it isn't. You are. Don't be too embarrassed this a common misconception. It comes up in most economics threads sooner or later. Once you learn it, you'll get used to correcting noobs too. The core problem? You chose an idiot to teach you. Anti knowledge. The more you learn, the dumber you get.
Because dictionaries provide definitions. And I have. It's an easy request. You just have to pretend I haven't answered it. Boring -- immeasurably -- that you have no response but content-free sneers at your moral and intellectual betters. It is immensely reassuring when the opposition is completely reliant on makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me. It proves they are evil and I am good. That is a content-free sneer. Of course it has. Your whole sub-Marxist rant is reliant on long-dead Karl. You have nothing else to offer but sneers and ad hominem filth. I know it because I do know economics, and you know it. No, just identification of conscious fraud. No it isn't. Rent can only be created by a legal entitlement to deprive others of access to opportunity that would otherwise be accessible. Right. But the worker paying the market rent for access to scarce and rivalrous economic advantage does not result in payment below the worker's worth by definition, because the worker is only worth what he could obtain WITHOUT that advantage. In case you were wondering, that was economics that proves you wrong. But of course I just proved you wrong on the subject. But of course, I just proved you wrong on the subject. Don't feel too bad. If you feel bad enough to kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly in shame and remorse for serving evil, that would be about right. I just proved you wrong with indisputable economic fact, as you know. Nope. All you can muster is silly effluvia from long-dead Karl. The greatest scientific hoax of all time... Which is completely irrelevant to the matter of rents. Because like you, they have to find some way to prevent themselves from knowing the fact that landowning forcibly deprives the worker of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise have been accessible, removing his bargaining power by making him dependent on wage labor for survival. Actually, you have made it clear that you are completely reliant on long-dead Karl. Proving me correct: the socialist intends to steal capital from the owners of larger firms. The socialist only has one way to "compensate" them: by stealing from someone else. Because it is utterly irrelevant. It is also completely reliant on land. Does that mean the landowner gets everything? Your Marxist swill is absurd and puerile.
Thank you for admitting that I proved you wrong. Just boring that you've been caught out derogating your moral and intellectual betters for telling the truth about land and landowning.
Grow up. Someone is... It almost all comes from private commercial banks. You are heaping disgrace upon yourself. I have provided you with the facts. Your ignorance is monumental, and is exceeded only by your conceit. I have schooled you on every subject on which you have presumed to dispute with me, including spelling. That is what merchant and investment banks do, but licensed commercial banks are mainly emitters of money. <sigh> As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" ROTFL!!! Right back atcha, champ. From YOUR OWN SOURCE: You are destroyed. Utterly, comprehensively, conclusively. It doesn't even matter what you say any more, because it is patently obvious that you cited Wikipedia WITHOUT READING IT. So in the words of the immortal Baff: Couldn't have said it better myself.... Yep. Yours. Yep. And you are the one who believes the fairy tale version that Wikipedia corrected. I'd say the same to you, but I am EXTREMELY skeptical that you are capable of learning it. Even from YOUR OWN SOURCE. So here are some final words to live by: And you are so very, very obviously an autodidact on the subject. Class dismissed.
Golly, we're making progress. I didn't ask for a definition. I asked for the economics involved. Perhaps its different in your neck of the woods? Perhaps, when you do a degree in economics, they just bung you a dictionary? Is the MSc just a thesaurus? A PhD perhaps Brewer's book of Phrase and Fable? This made me laugh. You've across like a 7 year old mind you. Refer to one aspect of Marxism that I've used. Again, rather than go for your childish ranting, actually refer to economics! I know your understanding of economics is pitiful. It is rare to find Georgists who manage anything more (and those that do tend to focus on issues such as environmentalism) Again you show zero understanding of basic economics. Take neoclassical reference to rent and the impact of market power. We simply need profit to exceed economic costs. And, of course, underpayment requires market power by definition. Chortle, chortle! That really is pitiful. "Worker paying the market rent" is inane twaddle. We have objective measure of worker worth. We have understanding, and its empirically tested, that wages are below that worth. That is, without any doubt, rent. You come across as someone that tries to win an argument by sticking cheese in their ears. Try Stilton! This neatly sums up your nature. You show ignorance of one school of thought. You attack another without delivering any rationale. And you try and hide from the zero economic content with your standard 'evil' catcall. Wrong gain! Underpayment is delivered by job search frictions and that means employers secure economic rent. Again, there really isn't any argument in it. That is why you're completely reliant on foot stamping. And you attack another school of thought without actually saying anything of merit. That's 3 now, without actually referring to any economics. Impressive ranting! Given you don't know any of the orthodox and heterodox schools of thought, how do you determine which school has influenced them? No need to answer. You don't! Nope. Compensation according to firm value is given. This is someone who hero-worships a man who supported the theft of whole countries. You have no coherent morality spine. Neither do you have any relevant economic comment, given socialism is about protecting property rights. You could actually refer to Marx here if you wanted! Henry had some great insights. Its a shame that the fanatics he has spawned sully his name. It really isn't difficult: market socialism refers to worker ownership. We therefore have to understand how firm value changes 'with' and 'without' labour. If property rights are protected, and traditional ownership is prohibited, we need to know the value of the firm without labour. Bit bleedin obvious, but given your innate hatred of economics I acknowledge your pain.
You seem confused. Please refer back to my wiki link on fractional reserve banking. Understand it first. The only banks that create money are federal reserve banks. AKA, the mint. Lisensed retail banks are not only emitters of money, they are attracters of money. You recognise that money gets deposited right? Of course you do. You have a job. So they attract and emit money. Borrow and lend, rather than just lend imaginary notes, they lend real ones. The difference between them and an investment bank is the type of clients they have. A high street bank deals with everyday investors. Businesses and people with pay checks etc. The end user. An investment bank is an interbank bank. It's customers are other banks. Right, if you've read and understood that link, then you understand where the bank got it's money and we can go on to address the creation of bank accounts. The second part you seem confused about. If a bank has deposits it may agree to loan me up to 90% of those unlent deposits. When a loan is agreed, a bank credits a sum of money to my account. No money is physically transferred at at that moment in time, a book entry is simply moved. At this point, no money has been "created". Nothing more than a book keeping entry has been made. No money has left the bank until I physically withdraw it. Which of course I must do in order to spend it. The amount I am allowed to borrow, is equal to no more that 90% of a banks total deposits. (Fractional reserve banking). The act of rebooking a credit from one account inside a bank to another, creates no money. They score it off one account and add it to another. Unfortunately I can't buy **** with a bank credit. I need to borrow actual money to do that. So yes a bank can create infinite entries into it's book, but it can't lend out more money than it has, because... no one excepts bank IOU's as currency. Except perhaps, the same bank. But I wish to exchange borrowed money for a house, not another bank account. So in this you are confused by thinking that the act of book keeping, is the act of lending. It isn't. That the creation of a book keeping entry is the creation of the funds being loaned. It isn't. (They create an account of the money, but not money itself). And that the money being loaned was simply magiced into existence by the bank, which it wasn't, it was deposited. Sorry but what you are coming out with is a well known conspiracy theory. It will be covered in the Conspiracy Theory section of this forum and many others. Zeitgeist is my favourite proponent of it. Watch this if you wish to become stupider. Or... see if you can spot his error. And since we love wiki, here's wiki explaining the movie for you. Zeitgeist: The Movie[edit] Zeitgeist: The Movie Directed by Peter Joseph Produced by Peter Joseph Written by Peter Joseph Music by Peter Joseph Edited by Peter Joseph Distributed by GMP LLC Release date June 18, 2007 Running time 122 minutes Country United States Language English Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 film by Peter Joseph presenting a number of conspiracy theories.[1] The film assembles archival footage, animations and narration.[2]Released online on June 18, 2007, it soon received tens of millions of views on Google Video, YouTube, and Vimeo.[3] According to Peter Joseph, the original Zeitgeistwas not presented in a film format, but was a "performance piece consisting of a vaudevillian, multimedia style event using recorded music, live instruments, and video".[3] The best thing about Zeitgeist? People who take it seriously. As they say in Japan. Damarai baka cun.
Public debt is simply a way of increasing the assets of the nation through government spending. When the government spends more than it takes it, it creates net assets in the macro economy. When it taxes more than it spends, it creates net decreases in assets. The government can create money at will, how it does it is a political decision. Ask yourself a question. Imagine you could make your own dollars in your basement and they were perfectly acceptable as currency. Would you ever run out of money? Of course not. The government cannot run out of money, it is impossible.
I wouldn't ever run out of money but pretty soon I run out of customers willing to accept my money. Public debt is simply a way of getting more tax money without unpopular vote losing tax rises. Instead of telling the truth and raising taxes, they defer the taxes by borrowing money from others. Printing money is part of their solution to repaying this money. But doing so reduces peoples willingness to lend to them. Interest rates are put up by the lenders, or they lend to customers with better credit ratings. Yes. A government can run out of money. Cf. Zimbabwe. Hyper inflation. They printed money until it was no longer accepted in trade. In infinite amount of totally worthless currency.
I am, you aren't. I know. You don't like clarity. Which cannot be understood without accurate definitions. Underpayment of workers, which Marx called "surplus labor." Is Marx economics? Doubtful. I've told you many times I neither call nor consider myself a Georgist. You just always CALL me a Georgist because that way you can avoid addressing anything I've actually said. The invalid neoclassical definition of rent was designed to erase the valid concept of rent. I thought you didn't hold with definitions. Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you like definitions that do the conceptual work for you, without any need for facts or logic. You asked for economics. If you don't think that's an economic statement, I can't help you. Nope. That's just some silly horse$#!+ you have made up. The only objective measure of worth is PRICE, which is what something traded for. But that's not what you are talking about, is it? No, that is just wrong on both counts. This, from YOU??!?!? ROTFL!! Again, you are the very last person in the world who can accuse anyone else of catcalls. Nope. Flat false. More accurately, there is no fact or logic in it. <yawn> Mirror time. I have definitely referred to economics. Just not the absurd and disingenuous nonsense YOU claim is economics. By looking at their claims. ROTFLMAO!!1! You DEFINE firm value as zero because the firm can't operate without labor, and then claim "Compensation according to firm value is given" when you give zero compensation! That's something you made up. Contentless filth. Readers can judge -- accurately -- your honesty on the basis of that comment alone. "Abolition of private property." That must be why you use his name as a term of derogation and abuse. Which you may have noticed I do not invoke, but you do, all the while falsely accuse me of doing so. Do you wonder that I conclude the opposition is evil? No, we do not, as that is utterly irrelevant. Market value is what a thing would trade for, not what it would trade for if the human species did not exist. Which is a blatant self-contradiction. It's bleedin' obvious that it is a disingenuous absurdity. That's rich, coming from someone who pretends the concept of firm value could be economically meaningful in the absence of labor.
Whereas you evince the certainty of ironclad delusion. <yawn> I quoted the part that proved me right and you wrong. Remember? Oh, I did, champ. Count on it. Read YOUR OWN SOURCE for the proof that you are objectively wrong. I quoted the exact text that proves it. Meaningless. They are "attracters" of money in the sense that those who have borrowed money from them have to deposit money in them to fulfill their legal obligations, but that's it. Depositing money in a bank does not create money. Lending does, as YOUR OWN SOURCE already informed you -- or would have, if you had been willing to be informed, which you were not, and are not. Nope. YOUR OWN SOURCE already informed you that lending actual notes is a sign of poor internal controls -- or it would have, if you had been willing to be informed, which you were not, and are not. Wrong. It's what kind of business they can do. That's just flat false. And before you go ahead and make an even bigger fool of yourself, I have WORKED FOR an investment bank. You very obviously have not. I do indeed. You very obviously do not. Which you have proved you do not understand, and REFUSE to understand. No, I just know the relevant facts, of which you are comprehensively (and immutably) ignorant. Nope. It doesn't need any deposits to make a loan, and will not lend you ANY of its customers' deposits, because it uses deposited funds much more efficiently as reserves. You are just repeating the fairy tale version of money creation because some liar told it to you. Right. But that money does not come OUT OF any other account, certainly not other customers' deposits. It is CREATED as the loan proceeds in your account. No. No book entry is "moved." The bank simply increases the balance in your account -- a liability -- by the amount of the loan proceeds, and creates a balancing asset of the same amount in its loans account. Wrong. The bookkeeping entry creates the money, as it has increased the amount of money in your account. Wrong again. You can just write a check on it, which is the usual way demand deposit money is spent. The check is accepted by another bank, and clears when your account is debited by the amount of the check. The other bank then has that money in its depositor's account. <sigh> Deposits are not reserves. Moreover, the loan proceeds are themselves a deposit, and the bank can always borrow reserves, so no customer deposits are needed to make loans. No, they do not. There is no "other account" that loan proceeds are removed from. Call your local commercial bank and ask the accountant. I DARE you. Garbage. You do it every time you write a check or use a credit card. Loan proceeds ARE actual money. That's what you don't get. YES THEY DO. That is what it means to have a commercial bank license, which is very much the point. Flat false. Any bank will try to clear a check drawn on that account. If the funds are in it, the check will clear. The check you write to pay for the house depletes the funds in your account, which then go into the seller's account at his bank. Yes, it is, as YOUR OWN SOURCE would have informed you, had you been willing to be informed. Yes, it is, as YOUR OWN SOURCE would have informed you, had you been willing to be informed. The loan proceeds ARE money. You can spend it. Nope. YOUR OWN SOURCE already told you that you are wrong. The money was created, but by privilege, not magic. It balances the loan asset, and is removed from circulation as the loan is repaid. It is fact. I'm not interested in your movie. I am citing YOUR OWN SOURCE, which happens to be quite a reliable one. So you don't know any Japanese, either. That fits. It would be, "Damare bakakun." And really, you should consider it. Seriously. At some point, you are going to have to stop digging.
From what I can see, it's not just Japanese you don't know. You are correct, depositing money in a bank does not create money. Money is created in a mint. Money is redistributed through a bank. A bank needs deposits to make a loan. It's pretty simple. I cannot withdraw a Ten Pound note from bank that has no Ten Pound notes. Before I can take one out, one has to be put in. A deposit must have been made prior to any withdrawl. Not rocket science. Carry on with you conspiracy theories if you prefer. You've been corrected. The rest is up to you. Ignorance in a student is acceptable, willful stupidity is not. If you are able to accept correction I will be willing to discuss things further with you, if not, not. Thanks for your time.
ROTFL!! I have schooled you on every subject on which you have presumed to dispute with me, including spelling and Japanese. Almost none of our money is created in a mint. No, it is almost all CREATED by banks, as YOUR OWN SOURCE would have been able to inform you, if you were willing to be informed, which you were and are not. No, it does not. It doesn't even need reserves, as it can borrow them after the fact. YOUR OWN SOURCE already informed you that making loans of notes is a sign of weak internal controls. But when you borrow from a licensed commercial bank, the BANK deposits the money in your account, not YOU. And that money is not taken from any other account or anywhere else. It is CREATED by the bank to balance the loan asset. But obviously beyond your understanding. Read and learn: "The process by which banks create money is so simple, the mind is repelled." -- J K Galbraith But at least the fact that you refuse to know the truth about bank money creation indicates you have a mind to be repelled by it. So you've got that going for you. <yawn> It is fact, as YOUR OWN SOURCE proved to you and, as I predicted, you then refused to know. It is merely a fact that you have decided not to know, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. No, YOUR OWN SOURCE proved me right and you wrong. Objectively, comprehensively and conclusively. I am objectively correct. You are objectively wrong. You are wrong in every possible way, from factually to morally to metaphysically. So eat your words, chump: You are talking to yourself, there. Clear? ROTFL! I am the one who has taken the cane from the cupboard and given you a dashed good hiding, and I will thank you to remember it. Thanks for making me look so good. I couldn't have done it without you.
