Quote from: TDoS on Jan 23, 2024, 03:23 PMWell..money might always be involved here and there...because it is involved in everything really. Sort of like saying "it is always the fault of carbon based life forms!".
I'll grant that money is in everything...but no, some wars take a little more to get it started.

I presume that is Pearl Harbor?  Why do you think the Japanese bombed there?  Because the FSoA was blockading them from getting coal and oil to pursue their war on China, which they were doing to grab Chinese wealth.

Saying it "starts" with money doesn't refer to an event.  What I mean is that the root cause is money, which is a proxy for resources.  So another way to say it is all wars are resource wars.

RE

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 23, 2024, 08:08 AMAs much as chocolate costs now it could be a means of exchange.

Food which is compact and long lasting works great as money, especially when in short supply.

In Feudal Japan, the main unit of money was 1 Koku, which represented the amount of rice to feed a family of 4 for 1 year.  Samurai were paid in Koku based on their rank and how many samurai they led and servants salaries.  Hatamoto, a rank akin to a colonel might be paid 1000 koku/year, out of which he had to pay his soldiers and servants.  The liege lord in turn had to pay his taxes to the Shogun in Koku as well, and the amount depended on the size of his fiefdom.

This direct form of resource based money is very straightforward and a whole lot harder to manipulate than debt based money.  It's impractical to use in small amounts though for daily transactions, so you still need some form of token to use as currency.  The hard part there is finding something to use that is difficult to counterfeit.

RE

A ton of rice is hard to counterfeit, but if if is a more stable reservoir of value than what we have now it is a superior form of money.  Despite the bulk.  Like gold and silver used to be.  A stable reservoir of value is notably hard to define in a capitalist system.  Here the imaginary market becomes real.  'The market' kicks around the reservoir value of money like the ball in a football game.

Instead fiat money had to be invented to support our capitalist upper class who would have gone broke otherwise.


The cyclone that carried Dorothy to the Land of Oz represents the economic and political upheaval, the yellow brick road stands for the gold standard, and the silver shoes Dorothy inherits from the Wicked Witch of the East represents the pro-silver movement. When Dorothy is taken to the Emerald Palace before her audience with the Wizard she is led through seven passages and up three flights of stairs, a subtle reference to the Coinage Act of 1873.

Can fiat money work in a steady state economy?

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 23, 2024, 06:03 PMCan fiat money work in a steady state economy?

Well, first off, the economy isn't steady state since the resources the economy depends on are depleting.  At the same time, the population that depends on those resources is still increasing.  So there is a constant negative change of less per capita available.

As you know, I'm no fan of any money at all, but under these conditions I think demurrage money probably reflects the reality the best.  A demurrage charge of perhaps 3%  would increase the velocity of money through the economy and encourage the liquidation of assets and price discovery, which is a really big problem right now.  Mispriced assets are everywhere, from real estate to stocks, bonds and commodities.

Doubtful you could get a demmurrage currency issued by any current goobermint though, so it's a moot point.

RE

Quote from: RE on Jan 23, 2024, 05:04 PMI presume that is Pearl Harbor?  Why do you think the Japanese bombed there?

Because they needed the Pacific Fleet gone in order to steal oil and materials from their neighbors. Sort of like Hitler, except in Asia. But money wasn't why America was in the war. It just chose not to sell stuff. Important stuff, but they chose to not sell stuff they were perfectly allowed to not sell. There was no more requirement that the US sell things they don't want to to the Japanese then there was for us to sell nuclear weapons to China after 1945. An economic decision, both scenarios. Money involved in both, no requirement it leads to wars. So money probably isn't the overriding factor. The Chinese haven't blown up any American military bases in Asia for us embargoing them going on 75+ years.   

Quote from: RESaying it "starts" with money doesn't refer to an event. 

Well, that is a caveat after the original claim. Which is why absolute claims are dicey in terms of accuracy. But they sound definitive and cool.

Quote from: REWhat I mean is that the root cause is money, which is a proxy for resources.  So another way to say it is all wars are resource wars.
RE

And the root cause of money, whether it causes some things, but not necessarily others, is because bipedal carbon based lifeforms suck. There is the common denominator for you. It isn't as though money is the be all and end all...when American Indians were migrating out of Western Canada and headed down ultimately to the American Soutwest they were happily murdering and killing for better lands and water all along the way.

Do you think it was all because of wampum? 

"Choosing not to sell stuff" is still about money, and Japanese stealing from the Chinese is about money and Germans stealing from France is about money.  The reason we embargoed the Japanese was because they were allied with the Germans who were stealing from the French who were our allies.  It's STILL all about the money friend.

Far as "wampum" is concerned, beads aren't money they are a barter item.  Fact is one of the things Europeans did was to outlaw Potlach economies run by the Pacific tribes in order to force them to use money.

And yes, the Indian Wars were all about money, the money the land the natives lived on was worth for the Europeans to steal.  Remember, resources is what money is proxy for, but you ignored that to continue this exercise.

Do you make these ridiculous arguments because you are bored or something?

RE

Quote from: RE on Jan 23, 2024, 06:42 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 23, 2024, 06:03 PMCan fiat money work in a steady state economy?

Well, first off, the economy isn't steady state since the resources the economy depends on are depleting.  At the same time, the population that depends on those resources is still increasing.  So there is a constant negative change of less per capita available.

As you know, I'm no fan of any money at all, but under these conditions I think demurrage money probably reflects the reality the best.  A demurrage charge of perhaps 3%  would increase the velocity of money through the economy and encourage the liquidation of assets and price discovery, which is a really big problem right now.  Mispriced assets are everywhere, from real estate to stocks, bonds and commodities.

Doubtful you could get a demmurrage currency issued by any current goobermint though, so it's a moot point.

RE

Demurrage, I had to look it up.  In a sense this is how money has been in America for about 15 years. We had 0.015 % bank interest as the norm.  Now because inflation returned banks had to start paying 5% which is what it should be for an average Joe trying to save money.

In those 15 years the rich made out big.  They are richer.  In the same period average savings went nowhere.  Even at a paltry 3% in that much time savings would have doubled.  Demurrage would only be used to screw the average guy harder.

Nobody is getting rich at 5%, but it does reward savings.  In demurrage wouldn't everybody just run their credit cards to the max?  The average American would be in deep debt, yet those with the big money will find ways to keep what they have.  Big money did not have to lie dead at 0.015% for over a decade like average Joe money (mine) did.  Now my reward for having my savings pays for a meal or two a day.  Whoopie!

Taxes provide the advantage of demurrage, but the funny thing about that is rich people are very successful at avoiding taxes.  In America rich people have re-written our tax laws to screw the poor and average Joe.  The legacy of Ronald Ray-Gun.  Changing taxes to the way they were 1n 1950 would provide the same advantages.

Ideally my savings would be loaned out and the economic activity generated generates the interest.  I know the economy does not actually work that way any more.

But it is time the government take control of the money supply away from bankers.  Bankers have put way too much money into the world, making the value of what a normal person has next to worthless.

Clarify the American details for me, but in Great Britain if a person borrows from a bank, the bank simply creates the money loaned out of nothing, and as the money is paid back an equal amount of real money is destroyed EXCEPT FOR THE INTREST PAID.  Which the bank keeps.  The extra interest amounts to new money in circulation degrading the value of all the rest of the money in circulation.



Causing this.

Resulting in a new Royalty, with the old one doing just fine too.  The regular guy, who should really have a large part of the money in the system, is screwed.



The American equivalent.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 23, 2024, 11:01 PM

Quote from: RE on Jan 23, 2024, 06:42 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 23, 2024, 06:03 PMCan fiat money work in a steady state economy?

Well, first off, the economy isn't steady state since the resources the economy depends on are depleting.  At the same time, the population that depends on those resources is still increasing.  So there is a constant negative change of less per capita available.

As you know, I'm no fan of any money at all, but under these conditions I think demurrage money probably reflects the reality the best.  A demurrage charge of perhaps 3%  would increase the velocity of money through the economy and encourage the liquidation of assets and price discovery, which is a really big problem right now.  Mispriced assets are everywhere, from real estate to stocks, bonds and commodities.

Doubtful you could get a demmurrage currency issued by any current goobermint though, so it's a moot point.

RE

Demurrage, I had to look it up.  In a sense this is how money has been in America for about 15 years. We had 0.015 % bank interest as the norm.  Now because inflation returned banks had to start paying 5% which is what it should be for an average Joe trying to save money.

In those 15 years the rich made out big.  They are richer.  In the same period average savings went nowhere.  Even at a paltry 3% in that much time savings would have doubled.  Demurrage would only be used to screw the average guy harder.

Nobody is getting rich at 5%, but it does reward savings.  In demurrage wouldn't everybody just run their credit cards to the max?  The average American would be in deep debt, yet those with the big money will find ways to keep what they have.  Big money did not have to lie dead at 0.015% for over a decade like average Joe money (mine) did.  Now my reward for having my savings pays for a meal or two a day.  Whoopie!

Taxes provide the advantage of demurrage, but the funny thing about that is rich people are very successful at avoiding taxes.  In America rich people have re-written our tax laws to screw the poor and average Joe.  The legacy of Ronald Ray-Gun.  Changing taxes to the way they were 1n 1950 would provide the same advantages.

Ideally my savings would be loaned out and the economic activity generated generates the interest.  I know the economy does not actually work that way any more.

But it is time the government take control of the money supply away from bankers.  Bankers have put way too much money into the world, making the value of what a normal person has next to worthless.

Clarify the American details for me, but in Great Britain if a person borrows from a bank, the bank simply creates the money loaned out of nothing, and as the money is paid back an equal amount of real money is destroyed EXCEPT FOR THE INTREST PAID.  Which the bank keeps.  The extra interest amounts to new money in circulation degrading the value of all the rest of the money in circulation.



Causing this.

Resulting in a new Royalty, with the old one doing just fine too.  The regular guy, who should really have a large part of the money in the system, is screwed.



The American equivalent.

And exactly how many years did Amazon get buy without paying ANY SALES TAXes?  Supplying the government with full access to all Amazon Web Servers in the world sure had it's advantages.

QuoteAs you know, I'm no fan of any money at all,

The current system in the Seattle Area is experimenting with this.  People are walking into stores and walking out with what they need.  There is no law enforcement to stop them.

This will lead to a bad end.  People who actually have jobs and see this do not like it.  Can you wonder why?

Planning a life to get to work on time.  Taking care of the business of an * ordinary life.  This requires focus for which there should be reward.  Watching adult children who live extraordinary lives steal does not sit well with a normal commitment.

A lot of people are walking around confused.  Eliminate all money and one of them is going to walk into my grocery store and take all the chocolate.  The roaches who visit our store do take more than they need.  I see it every day.  All the chocolate would soon be gone.

Leaving none for me.  I work so I can buy some.  I am not working just for my health.  Though after a professional career, and reaching the generation of wisdom, and where work is somewhat optional for me.  Working in a warehouse does make me a bad-ass motherfucker.


* An ordinary life is not to be despised.  An ordinary life simply has social obligations like children and care of the infirm and elderly.  An exceptional life is that of a young man who is paid as well, or almost as well as an ordinary man, but who does not have the normal financial obligations of an ordinary man.  With young men this often leads to enough free time and excess cash that the infirm in the head easily find trouble.

Quote from: TDoS on Jan 23, 2024, 07:42 PMAmerican Indians were migrating out of Western Canada and headed down ultimately to the American Southwest

Do you know which tribes?

FYI I do not idolize or denigrate the character of the indigenous.  Some are wise and good in their own way.  And some like the horsemen on the steppes of Asia through the ages have been nothing less than satanic. 

I have roots that settled in no mans land between the Sioux and the Ojibwe.  Nobody from either tribe was allowed to kill anybody in this bit of land and my ancestor was also left alone under their rules.  He trapped, started a sawmill, and of course had a homestead.  He trapped extra game leaving it in in his traps for local Indians to eat as he made his rounds.  They could not afford steel traps of their own.

My family let indians hunt on 'their' land when other settlers were trying to starve them out.  They were Christian people who knew the natives were here first and that the only way for them to eat was to hunt.  Live and let live.  In their minds they had no right to stop this hunting.  When the Minnesota Indian wars started one of my ancestors had to be taken from his farm by force because he said he had nothing to fear from the Indians and that he was their friend.  A posse from town rode out to fetch him.

Turned out everybody was right.  The Sioux warriors who rode in were not local.  They killed every white man they met.  They did not ask the local Sioux who should be left alone.

What you describe in Seattle is a Theft Economy at the retail level, which is the result of the Theft done at the wholesale level by the banks and the corporations that sell the goods in the stores.  Neither works because everybody on both sides is trying to take as much for themselves as they can get away with.  Gift economies work by giving people as much as they need.  Since you Googled demurrage, you can now Google potlach.

Where do banks get the money to loan people?  They borrow it.  So the carrying cost makes lending money a bad business.  Thus the reason no current goobermint would issue such money, goobermints are set up so banks can make money by lending it out.

It's a pay as you go economy, the money has to keep moving around it can't sit around too long or it becomes worthless.  Inflation does this also, but in inflation banks just keep borrowing money and adjust their interest rates to cover the projected inflation.  As long as they can borrow at a lower rate than they charge to loan it out + inflation, they make money on the spread.

You want a pile of money you can keep in the bank and earn interest on to pay you an annuity.  This is what you can't have.  Because the reality is that the stuff the money is supposed to buy is disappearing.  To be a true proxy for the available resources, the money has to disappeaar right along with them.  You can't get something for nothing.

RE

QuoteYou want a pile of money you can keep in the bank and earn interest on to pay you an annuity.  This is what you can't have.  Because the reality is that the stuff the money is supposed to buy is disappearing.  To be a true proxy for the available resources, the money has to disappear right along with them.  You can't get something for nothing.

Not exactly true.  The graphs I showed earlier document that the amount I or any ordinary Joe has is degraded by the financialized economy of new money taking away value.  It is not that things are disappearing, things are not disappearing.  At least not yet.  The slice of the pie an average worker has is worth ever less.  This is because the big pieces of pie get bigger making the other pieces smaller.

If I work for a chocolate bar today, but decide to buy it tomorrow I should not be penalized.  Money does not have to degrade with time.  The purpose of money is be to a constant storehouse of value, and I contend that capitalism is contradictory to maintaining a constant storehouse of value.  Most people who have heard about boom and bust cycles likely agree with me.

The problem is people always want something for nothing.  To work correctly capitalism would reward all stakeholders equitably with profit.  Equitable is not the same as equal but they are related.  Greed prevents equitable behavior.  The art of the deal, the art of the steal.  All socially sanctioned.  This results in exploitation that denies a fair share of profits to all.  Exploitation would not exist if equanimity were maintained, but then it would not be capitalism.  Correctly implemented capitalism evolves to socialism.  But not without taxing away lizard people.  Who unfortunately run the show.

Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 24, 2024, 02:19 AMThe purpose of money is be to a constant storehouse of value, and I contend that capitalism is contradictory to maintaining a constant storehouse of value.

People WISH money could be a constant store of value, but it can never be that because what it buys is not constant in its supply or in the demand for it.  Even Gold is not a constant source of value.  If there is plenty of food around, 1 oz of gold will buy a whole lot of it.  If there is little food available and you have nothing to eat, it could take your whole oz of gold to buy a Twinkie.  If there are lots of empty houses like in Legrad in Croatia, you can buy one for a dollar.  If there are none around in Islip  Long Island, same house goes for $600K.  Conditions change, and the value of money changes with them.

The total money supply also cchanges its value.  Gold was very valued in Spain in 1500, then they took tons of it from Montezuma.  When the ships brought it back to Spain, it took a whole lot more gold to buy a title from the King.  You might have been saving your gold your whole life to buy your   title, but  now the King didn't need your gold anymore.  Its value had changed due to the new supply.

Money is a physical representation of an accounting system.  The amount of it in circulation can change under many circumstances, particularly if the token used to represent the numbers is easy to produce, like paper money or digibits.  In a rapidly growing economy with a high velocity of money moving around in transactions, you need a lot of money in circulation.  A shortage of money in this situation makes the value of the monney increase.  People hoarding money in savings accounts will reduce the supply available and raise its value.   Banks making more loans will lower the value of money.

The system is always in a dynamic state of flux no matter what token is used to represent the accounting.  In theory, trading bourses establish the value of money and all other commodities at any given point in time, but these can be and are manipulated by people who either have large amounts of money or have access to large lines of credit.  They can push the value of anything money will buy up or down, so the money you have will buy more or less of it.

Because money changes all the time in what it will buy, really rich people don't keep all that much of it around.  They use the money to buy assets which they think will grow in value, or at least hold value.  Real Estate has been a traditional asset to hold, but it can crash in value also when the velocity of money decreases enough and people who have large holdings need to liquidate them.

This is the reality, wishing money would be a constant doesn't make it so.

RE

QuotePeople WISH money could be a constant store of value, but it can never be that because what it buys is not constant in its supply or in the demand for it.

You are not thinking like a Marxist.  Change is the constant of the universe not stasis.  All you are doing is making my point and stating that change exists.  And since it exists, a planned economy would be better at producing a money supply that holds value than what we have now.  Just saying it can never hold constant value is McFearson type negative thinking. (do nothing, it all is pointless, we all gonna die) Obviously some systems work better than others.  Get comfortable with change and make the right kind.

I live in Seattle and am married to a woman with Haida in her family tree.  I would not know what a potlatch is how?  Her people started it.

QuoteThe status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

Destroying more wealth than your competitor also works. 

It is notable that Argentina with one of the most screwed economies in the world has a nutball Libertarian in charge who rants about the evils of Socialism while he destroys his country by kicking all regulation to the curb.  He has inflation up to 211.4% so far.

How can anyone call it shock therapy.  There is nothing therapeutic about it at all.

Quote

• The nationwide strike comes just 45 days after President Javier Milei took office, making it the fastest action of its kind into the term of a new Argentina government.
• Thousands of workers took to the streets after a mobilization called by the opposition aligned Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), the largest and most influential union in the country, and other union forces.
• Analysts warned that the potential for the labor union's movement to grow in both size and potency could become a serious disruptor of economic activity.

'could become a serious disruptor of economic activity'  <=  Really?  I think dumfuck MSN author, that is the point.  Change will come no other way.

Apparently since the current system is capitalism 211.4% inflation must be OK with the MSN article.  211.4%  being a minor problem in an economy that now is suffering the indignity of people walking the streets demanding a fair deal.  The horror mass of civil disobedience by people who should be working and making the rich richer.  People who should not be disrupting the status-quo of 211.4% inflation.

'Analysts warned'  - The hatred of unions is so strong by MSN management that a strike is defined as a disruptor regardless of reason.  The mandate to say nothing good about unions at MSN is crystal clear.

I wish people could feel the manipulation.