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.
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
Sorry no idea what you mean.
Oh, so the bank has to just hand over cash regardless of the crackpot idea you come up with? Bunnies.
Jesus. Ignore that bit and look at the bit about how a bank operates.
Glad you agree.
Snap for the "labour creates prices" crap. Except, of course that I am right.
That's right. The price of water is going up because the value of "money" is plummeting like a frigging stone.
SO I am right then?
Non-sequitur
No, that's not what I said either. Please try and be at least a little bit honest in debate.
Someone removed your sarcasm detector?
No, didn;t think you'd actually be able to admit anything that actually happens in the real world.
Your problem is that you don't actually know anything about what you're arguing against, making this utterly pointless.
Still no idea what you mean.
So the bank gets to deide who it gives it's money to, meaning that it has to have the final say in whether a business starts up or not. Simple, neh?
And yours by the looks of it.
Look, if you have made your operation more efficient then prices come down, they don't go up.
I don't tend to understand made up stuff, it's true. I know fictional shit when I clap eyes on it though. As in labour cost has anything to do with prices. Have another reason why not -
Under your idea, over time money would become worth more. It obviously doesn't.
Why do you think it wouldn't?
It always has in every economy on earth. It's just the rule of things. Perhaps you are confusing fiat currency with money.
I was thinking about this this morning while stuck in traffic. (Bloody radio's broken)
And I was thinking about why you would think the LTV is reasonable when it seems so mad to me.
See, I think that the interest rate sets prices in our economy.
I think that prices would be spontaneously created in a capitalist economy by the actions of people trading.
From the point of view of the whole economy, a profit and loss can be made. We can have more stuff than we had last year, or some disaster could mean we had less. From the point of view of the LTV theory though, profit is only the redistribution of wealth from poorest to richest. Which is again arse about face. It's the profit that creates the two sides of the coin in itself, because wealth is always relative.
Why does there have to be profit?
To pay the banks back the interest. This interest rate can never be repaid because it was never present in the economy to start with. If there's 1000 pounds in the economy and I've borrowed 100 pounds at 5% I have to either get someone elses cash (thereby making them poorer and the bank richer but me the same) or have to give the bank some of my goods and all the money I do have left on me and have nothing for myself.
Which the bank will lend out again to someone else. Who will have to make a profit to pay them back.
It gets worse when you realise that the bank is lending money out that it doesn't have, that never existed and wants interest on top of. Currently there is a tiny fraction of fiat currency in circulation compared to all the ledger entries claiming that there is money in the vaults. I think we are currently running around 10% liquid cash to deposits for most uk banks, but it's hard to get details on it for obvious reasons.
Top question for your credit card company -
"If I don't pay you back, what will your loss be?"
...requires comment.
From the point of view of the LTV, profit is not redistribution of wealth. It is accumulation of surplus value.
As I said klitock - if you're going to argue against something, at least educate yourself about it.
Between which groups?
I already dismissed the idea that things have a value when they are not being traded. Value is a function of trade, nothing else. (Or at least measurable value)
Yeah sorry, I am shite at abstraction. Fact is, I read the article half a dozen times and it matches none of my experiences, what I know about banking, trade or human behaviour in general. It's tough to understand jabberwocky too. Of course because it doesn't make any sense, I reject it totally.
What do mean by "guff", btw? Shall I make a thread about how banking really works then?
Everything I have stated about the banks is factually accurate. If you have more facts that I don't have, please share them with me.
No, it's all factually accurate. It's one of the places where my "wacky ideas" come from.
Well, that is factually accurate. It's been done to death though.
Look, do you have any factual evidence that says banks don't operate this way?
1) Banks do not lend money, they create it. Hence - inflation.
2) Most bank deposits are merely ledger entries. Only around 10-11% of the total cash needed to cover all of all banks liabilities (both sides of the book) is actually in existence, never mind in the sodding vaults.
3) Banknotes are promissory notes that don't entitle you to anything, hence they are promises for nothing. They only get value through them being the only currency the "State" will accept in payment.
4) Both the US and the UK have been bankrupt for at least a generation. The value of the dollar, for example, is kept afloat because it's the only currency you can buy oil in.
An intersting fact is, if Russia stopped unoffically using the Dollar, the value would crash and the US would be fucked, the Dollar would be worth litteraly nothing.
However, the chances of that happening are pointlesley slim.
Tell you anything?
Anyway, Russia IS going to stop trading oil in dollars, it's going for Euro's instead.
http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/10/10/cnoil10.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2003/10/10/ixfrontcity.html
No, I mean, if they stopped using the dollar for EVERYTHING.
And let's not forget International Crime props up the dollar - Crime trade is all in Dollars.
Well, that's just it......they might do and they might not. Until you actually sell something, you don't know what it's going to sell for, or at all.
This is part of the much bigger human problem of lazy thinking.
Man swims once - he's been swimming
Man swims thirty times and suddenly he's a swimmer Even when he's not, you know, when he's walking, or sitting or something.
This ability to give things characteristics that they currently don't have is both cool (because it let's people think they are nice people when they aren't being for example) and shit (it let's people think they are nice people when they aren't being for example.)
It's a fucking disaster when you for example, build a whole semi-religious political dogma around one of these verb/noun fuck ups.
Blagsta thinks the LTV is "all that" because of a simple flaw right at the start, one that I don't do and prevents me from even knowing what the fuck he's talking about. I then go on and talk about the real world and Blagsta is left talking about a tiny moment like it's always true.
by your reckoning a boulder sunbathing and minding it's own bizz on the edge of a cliff ...would not have potential energy ...it does have ...not it might have it might not have.
No it has no energy until it moves. Another cool thing about humans is that we can imagine things that never happened, will never happen or of course, will happen in a given set of circumstances.
As a wonderful example, I will bet you a squillion pounds that in order for you to imagine that boulder having potential energy, you imagine it falling in your mind, then put back on top of that cliff.
Until it moves, it has no energy, while it moves, it has energy. Once it stops it has no energy again. You may as well look at the whole thing backwards and say all the rocks at the bottom of cliffs sunbathing have "prior" energy. It's divorced from reality totally.
...and maybe prior shoould be replaced with spent.
Right!
What Blagsta's theory (to put in boulder terms) says is that it's the potential energy that creates the boulder in the first place. At least as far as I can tell, it's utter gibberish to me.
My physics classes were wrong.
Did you know that scientists searched for the substance heat for centuries before some bright spark noticed that although heat is a noun, in reality it's actually a process?
Oh, and countries don't exist.
Have a view from space.
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.astro.psu.edu/~bmiller/astro11/pics/earth_from_space.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.astro.psu.edu/~bmiller/astro11/pics/handout.html&h=1000&w=1018&sz=137&tbnid=bLWh6bOAMfkJ:&tbnh=146&tbnw=149&hl=en&start=20&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dearth%2Bfrom%2Bspace%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
See any lines on it denoting territories? I don't. Why?
Because they aren't there.
Except, of course, you're being dishonest again and deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
Yes, most people understand abstraction klintock.
Oh for the love of god. I never said you couldn't create such abstractions, only that they weren't real. Seems pretty important in, say, a court where it's all supposed to have an evidential basis using facts. Add in a burden of proof on the other party and we have a recipe for amusement.
Abstract noun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_noun
Given that there is no evidence for the existence of a country it cannot be said to be factually true or in existence at all.