Wealth distribution

[Fisherking]

I try to stay in the realm of sanity, away from theories pushed by new age hippies with neither education nor qualifications.

If you're going to take apart the monetary system, I do expect a certain level of actual knowledge. Failed art classes and TV-jobs doesn't quite cut it.

But you really wouldn’t know, as you merely found it astatically displeasing and didn’t watch.

[HoreTore]

But you really wouldn’t know, as you merely found it astatically displeasing and didn’t watch.

No, I didn't watch it, as I hate youtube movies with a passion. I have, however, read the "theory" in written form in its many variations, and I highly doubt an old hippie will offer anything new.

The conclusion remains the same: it's nonsense from the clueless.

[Fisherking]

No, I didn't watch it, as I hate youtube movies with a passion. I have, however, read the "theory" in written form in its many variations, and I highly doubt an old hippie will offer anything new.

The conclusion remains the same: it's nonsense from the clueless.

I am sure there are those who would say the same of your teaching methods.

But they likely think they already know everything and there is no need to go over the material.

Very enlightened attitude, huh?

[HoreTore]

I am sure there are those who would say the same of your teaching methods.

But they likely think they already know everything and there is no need to go over the material.

Very enlightened attitude, huh?

If you want me to go over it, present your ideas in the proper format, ie. in writing.

As for my teaching methods, I happily accept criticism. I already know they're far from polished since I only have a couple of years of experience. One of the main reason why I work where I do is because I am constantly challenged on the scientific validity of my methods.

[Fisherking]

If you want me to go over it, present your ideas in the proper format, ie. in writing.

As for my teaching methods, I happily accept criticism. I already know they're far from polished since I only have a couple of years of experience. One of the main reason why I work where I do is because I am constantly challenged on the scientific validity of my methods.

I don’t want to argue with you about what you think you know.

I would much rather argue, or even agree with you on a topic we are both informed upon.

I don’t want to discredit your teaching methods. That was only an example.

The crux is that we need a debt free money system.

Your statement as to what money is was wrong, however, it is what money should be. The creation of money as debt only ensures that it is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands over time.

The video’s conclusion is digital coin, but I don’t particularly favor that method.

Money is for the fair exchange of goods and services. Money created from debt automatically places us in a position where that has to be repaid to those who made it. In the current paradigm this is private banks.

Government too is shackled to the debt. Government bailouts of the financial system only incurred more taxpayer debt to the entities that created the problem to begin with. It did not fix the problem and it will reoccur.

It can only lead to eventual financial collapse unless it is fundamentally changed.

Governments can do this with expenditures and taxes but there would be a tendency to overspending or over taxing, which would cause unrest or create disparities in currency values.

I am more interested in alternatives and developing a stable currency system.

Without some different system, than the debt based money supply we are never going to truly be able to fairly redistribute wealth.

[HoreTore]

The crux is that we need a debt free money system.

Your statement as to what money is was wrong, however, it is what money should be. The creation of money as debt only ensures that it is accumulated in fewer and fewer hands over time.

Your problem is that this statement doesn't make any sense. I would suggest reading up on economics, preferably starting with Smith and Schumpeter.

Fractional reserve lending is a completely mundane practice, and has existed from the beginning of banking. Yes, that includes 200 years of the gold standard. It doesn't translate into a meaningless statement as "money is debt".

Maybe the guys at rationalwiki can explain it to you.

[Fisherking]

Play semantics if you will but you are only playing silly games.

Currently money is only created by debt. Governments may print money but it does not belong to them. It belongs to the Central Banks.

Governments took on the debt when they bailed out the banks, did they not?

It is not a conspiracy. It is a fundamental flaw.

Money is credit or money is debt, in the end they are both the same.

The bank gives you credit for which you incur debt.

I think you understand far less than you believe you do.