Debt out of thin air not evil but necessary? Is it fair?

[Martinghoul]

Quote from xelite777:
Absolutely.

And for every one of your post (intended to keep people ignorant), I will post 2 more eye-opening videos, fair enough?

In my own words you say?

Sure, here it is : qdeqdqajf tosfwejsad nkesdkesjsjs wefwelfsdfsdse, afwehasqvergsa! Hdwdlosn rakqkqpsaad grteunadkka kao simasowqas.

Fair, although I fail to see how I intend to keep people ignorant. I am always willing to answer questions to the best of my ability, unlike yourself. At any rate, maybe you can help me with something I don't really understand?

You clearly have a strong view on the subject, given how many of these YouTube videos you have provided. In light of this, I find it a little strange that you're unwilling and/or unable to speak with your own voice. Why is that?

 

[Specterx]

Quote from MathAndLogic:

Inflation keeps the economy from imploding. I understand that. If I can sell only at lower price as in deflation, I may sell at a loss; so, why should I produce?

This is not really correct. If the money supply were stable and there has been no preceding credit expansion, steady deflation should occur because of rising productivity. Obviously, nothing will be produced for long if it cannot be sold at a profit.

Inflation is chosen for a number of reasons, mostly political and psychological rather than economic. Society craves the gambler's adrenaline and emotional rush of booms and crashes, credit-fueled speculation, and fabulous gains and losses, rather than the boring business of grinding out marginal productivity gains in a mature economy where the days of high single-digit or double-digit growth are behind us. Inflation allows people to rely on steady nominal increases in wages and asset prices, even if this erodes their standard of living in boil-the-frog fashion. Academic economists can't simply admit that most or all significant economic knowledge is already understood, they have to be constantly 'innovating', they need something to argue about, and there's a strong tendency to back inflationist, statist and interventionist policies and ideologies.

There is some validity to backing an interventionist or inflationist policy after a massive bust has already occurred, to stretch out the pain and losses over time and buy time for economic restructuring without mass starvation in the streets, etc. - but 'massive busts' can only occur in the first place because of inflationary credit expansion and debt-driven speculative booms.

 

[tradingjournals]

Quote from MathAndLogic:

Please refer to this link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/10/why-debt-and-money-created-out.html

Inflation keeps the economy from imploding. I understand that.

False! Worse, inflation can cause an implosion. Worse than worse: if one were to fight it too late, one could accelerate the implosion.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from jem:

very compelling link... I plan to just watch the first minute or two... then I did not want it to end.

and it seems to speak to the fairness issue. I was not even aware of the IRS issue touched on in the video.




<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RrwbgdtbdXE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Produced, I would think with the gullible as the target audience.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from StarDust9182:

It is the age old labor vs capital feud. (Today it is cast as the Democrats and the Republicans in the USA but actually one group of Kings). In the feudal system where this new system was born, the serfs in squalor would secretly ask this while the kings in luxury thought the peasants were revolting. And one day they did revolt! What has changed since the 1300's when the church fell in power, and governments and their associated legal and banking systems rose in power? Is this a trend change or merely a pullback to a new high in oppression?

It is fair in the sense that individual actions every day support the system, but if the system gets top heavy, it will correct as does every system created to judge, categorize, and separate. Unfortunately such corrections can be violent and changes come from the margins. Hopefully not this time. Pressures are building due to this basic "fairness" and except that people have food and some shelter, for the most part, would have erupted already.

IMO, the strongest power of the Internet is the destruction of distribution systems as a means of control by a tiny elite. The Internet enforces equality by cutting out the middlemen (and women) representatives. People represent themselves now and vote directly. The government fears that as potentially it's own destruction or change. That means, teachers, government, wholesalers, writers and dozens of other professions are obsolete or will change radically. IMO, the government has become more paranoid as they can feel a sea-change coming and a loss of control. They want the status quo like all entities in existence. IMO, the youth no longer vote because they are dis-enfranchised not because they don't care.

So either the government and their propaganda arm (the media and the school system) destroys the Internet or the Internet destroys the government and rebuilds society. Or perhaps I am wrong and something else happens altogether. All of us create it by our own actions and all of us can also fix it working together.

Is it an irony that the defense research arm (DARPA) created the ultimate enemy, potentially unstoppable threat to it's own government and citizens? What did Pogo say - We have met the enemy and he is us!

I assume when you attribute emotional qualities to "the government" as in "the government fears" or the "government has become more paranoid", you are referring to the collective response of plutocrats who exercise broad control over government policy and enforcement -- or at least attempt to exercise it. If that is your meaning, then I think I largely agree with you.

I am sometime astounded by the number of ET posters exhibiting a paucity of logic and reason and a readiness to accept the imaginary as fact if it fits their ideology -- you, Martinghoul, Swan Noir, and a few others, being notable exceptions. This is, it seems, consistent with the anti-intellectual mood pervading ET Forums.

I have mentioned a number of times that a very bright economist friend has often said that we have the answers to nearly all our problems of governing, but there are major hurdles standing in the way of implementing them. These hurdles are put up by a relative few with power and influence. They benefit from the status quo, or so they believe. If this is true, than the the trick to implementing rational change without upheaval will be to convince those few that their interests will be better served as well. It is rare that anyone will vote, or act, against what they perceive as their own interests, even in the face of obvious benefit to many.

 

[Swan Noir]

Anytime I am placed in the company of Martinghoul and StartDust I have certainly been complimented.

 

[StarDust9182]

Quote from piezoe:

I assume when you attribute emotional qualities to "the government" as in "the government fears" or the "government has become more paranoid", you are referring to the collective response of plutocrats who exercise broad control over government policy and enforcement -- or at least attempt to exercise it. If that is your meaning, then I think I largely agree with you.

........

Yes, I am referring to the bureaucrats that define and set policy as having emotional qualities. I do believe that groups have a kind of combined-personality with emotional traits at times.

Thanks for your gracious comments.