Interest rates.

Money has main reasons:

1. Medium of exchange (better implementation of barter)
2. Store of value.


Current banking system:

1. charges propertionally to loan value. It should be replaced with something of a fiixed cost. If you borrow more, you pay less (propertional to the work the bank does to deal with your loan, and not simply a difference). You do not have that in current system.

2. Fractional banking (even infinite banking (if run by governement) is important as a gearing for expansing.

3. Indeed if different between lending and borrowing costs of banks widen, the money taken in which is greater than the labor needed by banks to manage/process/etc loans, then this leads to an eating up of labor done in other areas.

As this is not productive, it will later show up as if someone just printed money and put it in the system. Labor is the only thing that produces wealth.
 
Quote from riskfreetrading:

Money has main reasons:

1. Medium of exchange (better implementation of barter)
2. Store of value.


Current banking system:

1. charges propertionally to loan value. It should be replaced with something of a fiixed cost. If you borrow more, you pay less (propertional to the work the bank does to deal with your loan, and not simply a difference). You do not have that in current system.

2. Fractional banking (even infinite banking (if run by governement) is important as a gearing for expansing.

3. Indeed if different between lending and borrowing costs of banks widen, the money taken in which is greater than the labor needed by banks to manage/process/etc loans, then this leads to an eating up of labor done in other areas.

As this is not productive, it will later show up as if someone just printed money and put it in the system. Labor is the only thing that produces wealth.
Is stupid this easy for you?
 
Quote from scriabinop23:

Nothing is collapsing. This is a wealth transfer. If you live in Michigan, your life sucks. If you live in San Diego and didn't overlever, you are still having a great time. If you live in San Diego and went 120% financed into a loan in 2005, your life sucks. No surprise there. If you are from one of the developing Asian countries, there is a high probability that your standard of living is much better than ever.

Just because FNM is a $12 stock doesn't mean the sky is falling for everybody.

And yes, incentive to produce (thus capacity) *does* disappear when money supply tightens and cash holds more value than assets/things. [deflation]

People go hungry when they have no work to do. And they have no work to do because business has no incentive to invest, as asset values dwindle and make the future value of assets negative. That comes from deflationary monetary policy. (appreciating currency / devaluing things)

If everyone switched to a barter system everything would start right back up. If there was a trusted organization to appraise assets, credit ratings and give zero percent term loans the economy would start right back up.
They would also need to be able to enforce the loans through asset seizure just like banks now.
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

Slider,

I'm not tryin to be rude but you really should study finance and economics a bit and then rethink your "system".

In your system, the government determines and sets the cost of borrowing. If they set it at zero and lend freely, it encourages people to be incredibly aggressive in their borrowing. This is precisely what happened when the FED dropped rates to 1%. People overleveraged and we are now paying the price.

Anyway, government lending at 0% is entirely backed by the government's ability to tax. In order for the government to lend, it must have the money in the first place. If it prints money to lend then we realize inflation which you claimed was caused by the banks in your first post. It isn't caused by banks, it is caused by more money chasing fewer goods.

If it doesn't print money to lend, then it must borrow money, take money, or both. Allow me to elaborate.

It can borrow money from foreign nations. These nations aren't going to lend at 0% because they will expect something for their opportunity cost of not investing in their own nation. Since the g-ment is lending to me at 0% but still must pay a premium to the foreign nation, they must then tax the people to raise the extra cash. So the interest that I should've been paying is replaced by tax and everyone pays it.

OTOH, it can borrow from the people in the form of muni bonds, but the people aren't going to lend money to the g-ment for free because they are giving up the opportunity to invest elsewhere. So again the g-ment must tax in order to repay the purchasers of the bonds.

Or the g-ment can avoid borrowing all together and simply tax the people up front and then use that money to make loans at 0%. The is essentially callled communism. The government decides how much of my money I don't need, and how much of my money you do need, and then they force the transfer. Good for them because they don't go into debt and you still expand your business. Bad for me because I'm now lending money to you at 0% and lost all freedom to chose my own investment or grow my wealth. IOW, I'm forced into giving to (not investing in) your business because the g-ment thinks it is a good idea.

".....These nations aren't going to lend at 0% because they will expect something for their opportunity cost of not investing in their own nation. Since the g-ment is lending to me at 0% but still must pay a premium to the foreign nation, they must then tax the people to raise the extra cash. So the interest that I should've been paying is replaced by tax and everyone pays it."

Japan has been lending to other at 0% (or close) to other. Therefore you explanation is already wrong under the current system.

I think that the source of mistakes in your analysis is that you view interest (its positive (+) sign) as the only way to price opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost could also be priced in term of change of the price of currency, and in terms of interest rate you can have not only zero interest rate, but negative interest rate and still price opportunity cost correctly.
 
Quote from riskfreetrading:

".....These nations aren't going to lend at 0% because they will expect something for their opportunity cost of not investing in their own nation. Since the g-ment is lending to me at 0% but still must pay a premium to the foreign nation, they must then tax the people to raise the extra cash. So the interest that I should've been paying is replaced by tax and everyone pays it."

Japan has been lending to other at 0% (or close) to other. Therefore you explanation is already wrong under the current system.

I think that the source of mistakes in your analysis is that you view interest (its positive (+) sign) as the only way to price opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost could also be priced in term of change of the price of currency, and in terms of interest rate you can have not only zero interest rate, but negative interest rate and still price opportunity cost correctly.

There is no borrowing of foreign credit it would just be a way to regulate a barter system.

Japan is most likely choking up the supply of the %0.4 percent loans otherwise they would see significant growth in production. Their inflation is at %0 right now so they are only lending to the select few who have top credit ratings.
 
Quote from slider123456:

Usury (the real definition is ANY lending with interest). is the cause of unemployment/overproduction and inflation/underprodution. In a system with no interest everything is balanced people have the exact amout of money they need to buy all the products they produce hence no overproduction leading to unemployment and no underproduction leading to inflation.

When Interest is introduced their is a shortage of money hence overproduction. In other words the goods are worth more than the money available to buy them which necessitates exporting or unemployment. On the other hand if there is an underproduction from increased efficiencies this leads to inflation as their is more money than goods to buy leading to a raised interest rate hence more investment from foreign countries. This will balance out between 2 or more countries as long as one is overproducing and one is underproducing. When there is not a balance and both countries are over-producing then unemployment will result. The other problem is there is interest being taken out of all countries leading to not enough money being available to balance it all out leading to someone failing and unemployment in one country or the other whereas with no interest this does not happen and also the necessary dance of import/export which is needed when interest is introduced is not needed.

The other problem is the authority of banks to take interest. The value of money does not come from our belief in it but more correctly from our belief in it buying the goods we produce. The banks do not produce these goods, we do, so why are they getting a percentage of everything we the society makes. Are we paying them tremendous amounts of money to confound a system that should work if interest was taken out and to be our overseers and if so why? Why do we not take our destiny into our own hands with a interest free system that is simpler because it does not involve the intricate dance of import/export between 2 or more countries or the inevitable spending deficiency introduced by interest.

The amount of money we pay banks to confound a system that is very simple is staggering and is the cause of someone failing even if they make no mistakes because their is not enough money to buy all the products we make. On a $200,000 loan the total that would be paid is $500,000 over 30 years so $300,000 for them to do nothing. The interest on this loan is necessarily incorporated in the next wave of loans where interest is paid again and again and again until after many generations it is paid off. This interest causes huge imbalances in the world and is the likely the main cause for many many 3rd world countries. We pay them all this to make a fairly simple system overly complex.

If we kept the money we paid the banks we would likely have massive surpluses and a continually better quality of life from more and more efficient manufacturing techniques which would lead to deflation and a better quality of life where we could work less and have the same quality of life or work the same amount and have a continually better quality of life instead of having to work more and more to have the same quality of life.

Does anyone understand why the system is run like this with an overly complex and efficient system instead of a simple and efficient one?

Insightful post.

Fractional Reserve Banking and Debt-based money is parasitic by its very nature.

Ever dollar minted is debt. So money supply must grow commensurate with interest payments or the System collapses.

This is why we have inflation. To keep debt payments serviceable.

In reality, this is stupid. There is no need to borrow something thats created freely.

Further, if all debt was paid back, under the current system, there would be no money supply and the economy would collapse.

Debt is money supply. And money supply is debt.

So what the Great Scammers bestowed on this Country is a life of financial servitude in perpetuity that ends in cataclysmic bankruptcy.

Debt cannot be paid back. It can only earn interest. And that debt (which earns interest) must grow every year to accommodate economic growth.

The whole scam will eventually bankrupt the entire Country and all assets will be forfeited to FED MEMBER BANKS. Heres a simple example to illustrate:

Every dollar minted costs 3% interest TO CARRY, per year.

Lets assume our GDP starts at 100$ per year and grows at 3% per year.

Year 1: 100 x 1.03 = 3$ interest.

Year 2: 100 x 1.03 = 3$ interest
..............103 x 1.03 = 3.09 interest

Year 3: 100 x 1.03 = 3$ interest
.............103 x 1.03 = 3.09$ interest
.............107 x 1.03 = 3.21$ interest


See whats happening here?

Each year, the money supply (aka debt) is only *serviced*, not paid in back full.

So by the end of year 3, the interest payments on each years cumulative and ongoing debt is now 8.6% of GDP. Not 3% from which we originally started. Taken to its logically conclusion, the eventuality is debt-service payments on M3 money printed from nothing or borrowed from foreigners will eventually cost the United States 100% of its GDP.

This is also why Income Tax has continued its rapid ascent since 1913 and will never come down. To accommodate the unstoppable ballooning of interest payments that must be made on the ever increasing money supply. Money supply which is 100% debt-based.

This is the scam.

It doesn't matter if FED Funds average rate is 1%. Sooner or later, the entire COUNTRY will be the property of BANKSTERS because the interest on all that paper created since 1913 only accumulates. The principle is NEVER paid back.

Its a mathematical certainty.

And very, very fucked up.
 
Quote from riskfreetrading:

Money has main reasons:

1. Medium of exchange (better implementation of barter)
2. Store of value.


You are missing one function.

And perhaps we should start with some simple questions: What is economy? What is wealth? How can wealth be created?
 
Quote from slider123456:

If everyone switched to a barter system everything would start right back up. If there was a trusted organization to appraise assets, credit ratings and give zero percent term loans the economy would start right back up.
They would also need to be able to enforce the loans through asset seizure just like banks now.

If we had a barter system without any form of interest payment, there would be no incentive to loan. You need to go to school and learn how to think a little more three dimensionally in your analysis (or like i said before, get off the pot).
 
Quote from scriabinop23:

If we had a barter system without any form of interest payment, there would be no incentive to loan. You need to go to school and learn how to think a little more three dimensionally in your analysis (or like i said before, get off the pot).

We as a a society have an incentive to create an efficient barter system. We as a society would have a government (who works for us) regulated barter agency that makes sure the barter dollars mean something by enforcing asset seizures and possibly charges depending on severity (if fraudulent). In effect a %0 loan.

So you are right no one else would have an incentive but we definitely do.

Most likely the only things that would change would be that the boom bust recession depression cycles would no longer exist. There would be big business and they would compete through efficiencies. Everything else would remain the same with a very increased quality of life. We would probably be amazed at the efficiencies that have been found in the last 60 years that have been eaten by our soaring interest debt.
 
Question I have - for any econ guys - are the market fundamentalists / austrian school guys right that market determined interest rates are 1)better, 2)won't cause boom/bust cycles? As opposed to centrally controlled rates ala central banks.
 
Back
Top