The method of implementation, honesty of the governement is another question that could be addressed using part of another system I have researched. What I'm saying is Ron Paul doesn't have the answer, neither does Mike, neither does Social Credit, and neither do your or I. But I do believe a system could be made to work by taking all the best parts of all these systems and making them work as one.JMarsigli wrote:You're dancing the issue again, but here we go...ta ta ta, it is my post and I believe it is about Ron Paul not having the answers: ie. he is not, er, gold is not the all powerful genie many people think it is...
Recessions without government interference have a tendency to break this up. Please give an example of any system in the last 200 years that did not have any government interference. My history book says there are none, how about yours?Defaulted debts vanish concentrated wealth. ... and they destroy the individuals who cannot pay, of which there are plenty in a compound interest system... like families, like MINE! Am I some sort of sewer rat that needs this "correction"? And after the correction, who is left holding the larger bag???I'm sure you know this. The MPE, as unpractical as it is, would result in the same wealth accumulation that our current situation does. In fact, if MPE worked, it would likely be worse because there would be no default mechanism built in to humble wealth accumulators. That is pure speculation, and I purely speculate exactly the opposite.ithink wrote:2. Compound interest sir, always concentrates wealth too highly. That is what it does. You say you have elaborated, but I have not seen it.
ithink wrote:Furthermore, Mike says "the present sum of existent debt far exceeds both the currency in circulation, and the remaining value of represented property" Is this true of false, sir?
That's an unsolvable debate that requires consensus on what the "value of represented property" is. I imagine you know this as well. No, I do not. The amount of money in circulation is not enough to pay all the outstanding debts. Sir, we have a mathmatician telling us this. Any thought experiment will confirm it. C'mon. If 1 billion is loaned this month, 1.1 billion is owed next month and without another loan, there isn't enough to pay the first. Do you agree with this or not?
Now how about this:the process of being compelled to maintain a vital circulation by re-borrowing principal and interest paid out of the general circulation obviously, perpetually increases the sum of debt so much as periodic interest on the sum of debt. Thus, both existent data and accountable analysis of the underlying process concur, and project such a sum of debt increasing in proportion to a circulation, that the costs of servicing an eventual sum of debt will impose systemic failure, in that at least the entire circulation will eventually be dedicated to servicing debt.
This fails to incorporate circulation from debtors back into the economy. A common misconception is that the Fed holds all these ever increasing debts, and the interest paid just keeps mounting higher and higher. That is false, and most who keep repeating it know quite well they're not telling the truth. The Fed sends the majority of the excess taken in from interest to the Treasury. Congress spends it into the economy, thus providing the phantom "uncreated interest" that is feared so much. What you are failing to tell us is that all that money -- every red cent -- is generated by a loan. You cannot pay off a debt to bank A without a loan from Bank B. And the minute you try, you owe more money. Wrap your head around it.
If you want to discuss the process of finding a bottom among a default then you'll have credibility with me--even if you believe a default spiral would not stop. Contrary to what you've posted here, I considered Mike's MPE until his madness overtook him as it always does. I sincerely asked questions regarding the model, and when Mike was stumped he'd revert to anger and claiming "you can't refute the math!" (Umm, yeah, 2 + 2 = 4. That's my economic model and you cannot refute it, can you). So I'd appreciate your honesty in quitting inferring things you've made up. Fine. Post the refutation of the math. Dance around if you wish, or just post the refutation of the math.
Google "Muslim Banking". Apparently the pope kind of likes it too. The Muslim system is supposed to be full reserve, but it's fractional in practice, as they admit. I'm aware of the other systems in general.ithink wrote: Regarding getting rid of compound interest, yes, I would like to get rid of it, but I think it is just way too cumbersome to switch to a system like Mike's. What I'm saying that could be done is what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5. I'm saying just do the math, whatever it works out to be, and force the banks to issue the entire debt up front as the loan. I think that without the increasing pressure on the system from the demand to take out another loan to pay the "missing interest payments", you could sustain a static economy rather than one that was mandated to grow constantly, which of course puts massive pressure on all the resources involved, including working fathers, mothers, and the planet itself.
"what would happen to the economy if the principal issued by the bank on day one equaled exactly the loan payed back at year 5." Banks couldn't make money, so you're left with a state run bank to issue all loans. If the bank didn't charge seignorage then taxpayers are on the hook for bad loans and it would be worse than the current GSE model because there wouldn't be a protective cushion from defaults, which are inevitable and unpreventable. So a state bank would charge seignorage, which is interest for all intents and purposes. But is it compounding? No.
Milton Friedman's countercyclical ideas are very interesting, but I don't see how they'd work without a trustworthy congress. We'd need senators responsible to the state again for it to work IMO, or they'd debase way to far and they do.
Thanks for you comments, they are well worth the read as I am not beholden to any particular system.