If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
yes and the shopkeeper is obliged to give you tangible things under law, that's what i said.......
a tangible physical asset is something that holds a certain value or worth........before the days of currency people bartered with animals or........scarce materials, like gold and silver.........it's well known these are rare and hence hold a certain value because it's finite, when people started trading in gold or agreed on its scarcity i don't know.......but it holds a lot more physical worth than a bit of green paper, which is not very finite as you can print as much as you like........paper currency first started as a receipt, where you would go to your local banker/merchant and get him to store your gold for you, which is what people did to avoid getting robbed or whatever........the merchant would then give you an IOU, that's all that cash is, an IOU.......then people started trading IOUs when you could travel from town to town and trade them in at your local bank........it became more universally accepted, and it has progressed from there........now this is fine in theory, because all that gold is still sitting in a vault somewhere.......the problem today is that paper no longer has any physical asset behind it, so in essence it's worthless.........the only thing holding it together is the law and public trust......if you think gold has no more worth than why has the price been steadily rising and why have all the silver and gold reserves been steadily disappearing from the Federal Reserve? the banking elites and economists would disagree with you.......
there is nothing wrong with interest, if you are lending something that you physically own or possess, because you are at risk .........when the bank is 'giving you £10' as you put it, they probably can only back that up with £1 in actual reserves.......what you need to understand is that every dollar or pound in circulation is debt and has been created by the banks out of nothing, and so is earning the banks billions of pounds every year.......at absolutely no risk to themselves, because they are not lending any tangible assets......
I'm not disputing that you can go out and buy stuff with cash, you're missing the point.......
well obviously not, you can't produce gold out of thin air because there is a FINITE amount.......as for diamonds, well they are also losing their value now that they can be made artificially.......
He isn't. He can refuse the custom of any person he wishes. If he wants to be paid in salt then he can be.
My £5 note is worth £5. It is physical and has a tangible value and worth.
I appreciate the point that £5 is only a numeric figure held up by public trust. But it is still something with a tangible value.
Besides which, this class action is a load of balloney. If, by some stupid legal technicality, the action were to succeed, I trust that they would require a pay out in some form of compensation, yes? very well, since the claim is that the money is thin air, then let their pay out be a load of thin air, and see how they like them apples.
Fools.
stop being pedantic, what i meant was you cannot be refused goods on the ground that your money is worth nothing, because the LAW says it is, hence the 'i promise to pay the bearer' on your banknotes.......reserving the right not to serve someone in your shop has nothing to do with this........
tangible how exactly? forget it is currency, in reality is a bit of paper, and paper is worth next to nothing, i think it costs something like .000001 p to print a note, that's its physical worth.........
then do tell, where does it come from?.........
Nope, all debts to the banks would be wiped out. No more mortgages, no more loan repayments, no more national debt.
It looks fine from a personal point of view, but look at the whole of us a s a group and a simple question comes up.
How do we pay back more than there was in the first place?
At in interest rate of 0.00000000000001% after one year there would be an unpayable debt from someone somewhere in the economy. This person would then have to mortgage something or sell their labour to someone else in order to try to pay it back. If they succeed then someone else will lose out, if they fail, than they will lose out. As a group, we can never win, never pay it all back.
So, in exchange for a bit of printing and some sums, the banks get lots of peoples real world stuff without doing any work whatsoever (unless you count keeping a straight face work) and everyone beavering away to provide them with more and more stuff.
Oh yeah, and paper currency is that which should not be refused in sevice of a debt -
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:K47pVK7CaPAJ:www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-51.pdf+should+not+be+refused+legal+tender&hl=en
Leading to much confusion and hilarity at the bank if you refuse their debt notes.
So make your own -
http://www.lawdepot.co.uk/contracts/promnote/index.php?pid=google-promis_uk-main_c&a=t
Which may sound fantastic in the short term - goodbye barclaycard debts, goodbye mortgage.
However when I want to go for a bigger house who do I borrow money off?
And to be honest I'd rather keep most of my money electronically in a bank, than phyisically in box under my bed.
I print another million quid. The currency you now hold is worth less than when I added it to circulation. It's called inflation and robs you in your sleep. The government needs to pay the interest on it's debt. This is called taxation and robs you while you work and spend. Given that it's the mechanism by which capitalism operates I am amazed at your response.
The bank, same as you always did. They charge you a flat fee and have to actually have the assets with which to back up their loan to you. Once they run out of asets with which to back up their lending, they have to stop. pretty simple really.
Also, do you think you would need to borrow anything like as much as you do now? It takes 6 months, more or less to build most houses. Why does it take 25 years equivalent labour to buy one? Oh yeah, you are paying back many times more than you borrowed because of the fraud that banking currently is.
That's fine, and is what banking was originally. You keep your valuables in a secure place, the owners of that place charge you for doing so. They would no longer be allowed to lend your stuff to 9 other people on the off chance you don't want it back.
that's where the notes came from. the banker would write a sworn statement that you had x valuables in his vault, which you could give to another person to trade with.
The problem was that the bankers started (and still do) printing out more promises than they had (and have) resources to cover. Not only that, but what they were "lending" in this way wasn't even theirs to begin with! and then they charge interest.
How about you lend me your house, I take out loans for the houses value with 9 different credit companies for the full value of the house, and leave you with the problem of paying them back.
I'd call that theft, they call it banking.
yes with a gold standard theres a relayively fixed amount of gold, and thus money shows exactly how much of thhe overall national wealth you own
nothing wrong with interest, but requiring money that doesnt yet necesserily exist ie interest forces more 'money' to go into the system thus making banks money through inflation, interest or taking physical things
why ill never become a investment banker, its not a real job imho
Inevitable? That is something you can't prove.............
Increasing global impoverishment? Wrong.............
The gap of rich and poor is widening and indeed the once hallowed "middle" class is shrinking at an accelerated pace. The only people making out are but an ever decreasing global elite.
Time to face the truth dear boy, ideological self-deception wont protect you from reality.
Yes, I understand that. However, it isn't that relevant to people's everyday lives. What is relevant is how people can improve their pay and conditions on an everyday basis, how people can attempt to improve their environment etc. Abstract bollocks is meaningless to most people.
Except it isn't though is it? Class analysis is a way of looking at capitalism, how it works and explaining the conflicts inherent within it. Try telling workers locked in an industrial dispute with their bosses that class struggle is an abstract conflict.
Yes, because paying the mortgage every month is an alien concept to all but a few people. :rolleyes:
By, for example stop being ripped off left right and centre by the banks?
How do you get fair working conditions when the system you are using must produce the same conditions over and over again. If you destroy the factory but leave the thinking behind it yadda yadda.
Attempt? How about actually fucking doing it for a change?
WHA???!!! Your statist abstract bollox seems to play well with most people, in fact you have consistently said "Most people can use abstract thought" and so on. this isn't abstract, it's what actually occurs in the world, what are you, delusional?
Try asking your average joe worker to explain the labour theory of value to you.
Besides, Socialism is seperate to the Trade Union movement, hence the failure of Socialist organisations in the late 19th / early 20th centuries.
Yer average Joe worker is well aware that they don't get renumerated properly for their labour.
Errrr, yeah mate. :rolleyes:
No he isnt. Joe Sixpack is more itnerested in when his next trip to the pub is and frankly, I'm not suprised. You socialists are such bores.
You'd be surprised. Maybe you should talk to some people and not be such a dismissive arrogant snob. You really aren't in any position to be.
If everyone is so happy with how much they egt paid, why do so many people grumble about it?
You're a plank.
(a) I'm not advocating "class warfare". I have a class analysis. Two different things.
(b) No, I don't expect everyone to have a developed class analysis. However, most people are well aware that our system screws them on a daily basis.
(c) No, I don't expect everyone to be fully clued on Marxism. Nowhere have I suggested such a thing.
(d) How is it dead and buried?
You are wrong, poverty has had a downward trend for some time. I could find data etc but I don't expect you would beleive me or would cliam it to be 'illusory'
or some such conspiracy theory so I won't bother......
The gap of rich and poor might be widening but this is not hte same as impoverishment increasing is it?
Ideological self-deception? Will you use every excuse to use some fancy turn of phrase when it is completely meaningless and out of context, do you think you sound clever? Some might do, others do not.........
Please, ignore it. you usually do.
how about answering some of the other points, Blagsta?
Fear is something to be afraid of for sure.
At that point I would present to you a number of counter articles which address that very matter and show how IMF/World Bank (the very institutions which have a vested stake in creating false perceptions of global trends precisely to fuel additional forced "structural adjustments" upon developing nations for the furtherance of corporate hegemonic interest and essentially further enrichment for the elite few at the cost of the great many) apply a flawed criteria of measurement and thereby arrive at a false conclusion.
Your argument is clearly not as well researched as you smugly presume it to be.
One excerpt upon which you can chew before perhaps daring to question your patently false presumtpions on the matter...
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/j_poverty.html
Depends,once again,on your definitions of "private" and "state-owned".You say the problem is that the Federal Reseve is "private" and not "state-owned",but the reality is that the fed is backed by the guns of "the state".It IS a private club,essentially making you an offer you can`t refuse.Try starting your own "private" bank,but don`t forget a big "please could I" to the men with guns or you would soon have their guns pointed at your head.
I`ll suggest that the answer is "unlimited" banks issuing whatever "currency" they like,but NOT backed up by a gun to your head i.e. you can say "no" to their currency if you are of the opinion that the said bank are shysters .A voluntary service :thumb:
Their ?????? Is that implied ownership :nervous: . And just how did "governments" feed anyone ? Or "protect" for that matter ? Your "faith" in "government" could be described as "fundamentalist" (ask Blagsta
You mean value IS subjective ? Now there`s a thought,I keep getting told it`s based solely on "labour"
So "average Joe worker" does think the coerced issuance of currency is relevant to their life
seeker
As usual, your position means fuck all to most people. As I keep saying - start from the material reality of people's lives and go from there...otherwise whats the point? How many people have you convinced? How many lives have you changed? What activism can people do in their work place with your stance?
I think you're confusing price and value.
What can people do about it? How can they use it to better their conditions at work and in their communities?
Yes there are issues with the data of which I am well aware. The fact that there are flaws does not make the conclusions that poverty has shown a downward trend completely invalid however.
The point about cross country comparison is completely invalid as we are talking about changes over time for a start.
And even if you say the data is flawed, how then do you cliam to show the trend of 'increasing impoverishment' then?