Money 101.

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Money 101.

It's an old packet I used to use, and is outdated as it reffers to the old Minnesota Transportation Act.

I should put together a new one but I think some people may still find this interesting.

Ya'll let me know what ya think?

http://www.themoneytalkshow.com/media/Money101.pdf

 

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: Money 101.

 

Very interesting and very true.  Money as debt is very detrimental to society as we currently see.  

The only part I disagree with is that people's Incentive would be destroyed if money was just given.  The argument is that if everyone was constantly given money, commerce would stop because people would consume and consume till the economy was tapped out. I don't believe this for one second.  Total bs.  

If we all consumed and consumed till we were tapped out of resources(based on the giving scenario), then the incentive would be to Produce, seeing is how only paper dollars would be left after constant consumption.  Early hunter and gatherers had the natural incentive to produce to end scarcity for their people.  So fundamentally the better everyones life is the better the individuals life is.  Why even have scarcity if it creates aberrant behavior in our current world?  Scarcity does drive profit, maybe that's it!!!  tada!!

Money does drive people, but we are born with the natural incentive to just do things.  Think about when you were just a curious little boy or girl. You had no concept of money, but you still had incentive to work or create things of interest.  It's really money that robs people of that natural incentive to create, work, solve, and replaces it with greed, corruption and Bernie Maddofs.  Many younger people have this self-centered "me" "me" "me" greed mentality which is primarily money driven and no real concern for humanity or the earth.  Corporations dump to save money with no concern for the planet, people lie, cheat, steal, rob, back stab for monetary advantage all for self preservation and cyclical consumption of products that we THINK we need.  

I think money has done its good deed, but it has also done it's damage too. 

 

~Joe

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Money 101.

The argument is that if everyone was constantly given money, commerce would stop because people would consume and consume till the economy was tapped out.

 

The arguement is that people wouldn't be able to consume because production would come to a hault because people would lose their motivation to produce.

Why would a person at Mcdonalds want to produce those meals if he could just get paid to sit at home? 

Why would a factory worker want to work such long and hard hours if they could just sit at home, spend time with their family, enjoy life and collect a paycheck? 

Why would auto workers want to work so hard to build new cars when they could just sit at home and get paid?

I like your opening statement about how debt money is detrimental to society.  We can so clearly see this in our every day lives.  What amazes me is that when people are faced with the idea of debt free, wealth money(money spent into circulation, not lent like debt money) they just can't get their minds around it.

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: Money 101.

 

 

Like I said if you don't work you don't eat.  People need to eat so they will work.  Also if consumption of food got that bad, i don't think McDonalds would be the best source of nutrition.  Seeing is how the crap we pump people with makes them sick.  That's one reason why universal health care is an issue.  Years and Years of making people sick for the sake of profit has caught up with America (overweight, diabetic, cancers,list goes on and on).  If we gave people proper nutrition from the start and never pumped them full of dow chemicals, our health would be much better off and the issue of universal health care would not enter debate.   

Autoworkers can't drive and his family can't drive either if no cars are made. 

People will not lay in the sun drinking pina coladas 24/7.  People always want to do things.  

Money did not drive Darwin, Tesla, Edison, Galileo, it's the natural incentive that drove them.  

Billion of volunteer hours are put out by people who just want to do things.  No money drives them to do that.  

People need to realize that The better everyones life is the better the individuals life is.  Another way to put it is, the individuals life is better under

a 1% unemployment rate as compared to 16%.  I feel that when people say NO ONE would do anything if they had everything is just a bye products of the monetary greed me me me mentality.  

If you won 300 million powerball, would you just site and do nothing?  Nope, because new incentives would drive you, which goes back to my argument "people have a natural incentive to do things."

~Joe

 

 

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: Money 101.

 

I would like to add.  When you think about what wealth is, fundamentally it's not money.  It's the resources that we make or discover, oil gas, and so on.  So when you think about it, people who work in the banking industry should be not paid the money they make.  Considering how fundamentally money is a Nothing thing, and bankers produce NOTHING besides a money/debt trap.

If anything we should be working on how to automate the banking industry through cybernated technology.  Since Technology does not know what Greed and Corruption is, if we automated the banking industry with the proper technology, then the monetary system would work for the betterment of society and humanity instead of the Greedy Oligarchs we have running the system now.  

When you think about technology and how it's really technology that solves human problems, why not automate an industry that is filled with greed and corruption.  Take the greedy self centered people out of the system and replace it with something people trust more than humans... Technology.  We automate jobs on a consistent basis to replace humans for multiple reasons such as greed, insurance, sick time, vacation pay, sick pay, save money and so on.  

If governments really cared about society, we would have people with a technological mentality with human concern in office if they really cared about society and how to make it function better, not this current war war, blow everything up mentality we have going on.  What  good are the land and resources if the idiots in power want to nuke it all?  how stupid can you be?

There will be a day when technological unemployment will make monetary economic pointless and useless, but until that glorious day I say we automate a system that cannot be run by greedy corrupt humans.

 Some may argue that, "what if the programers make the cybernated banking system corrupt?"  First off, why would you want to do that, is the real question?  If the programers make the monetary system corrupt, then the end product would be chaos, but they are also hurting themselves as well as many loved ones, so making a corrupt cybernated banking system would be pointless.  More like a catch 22 for the programers as well as others who would suffer. Would you want to raise your family to be corrupt?  I think not.  It does nothing.

I have much more to say, but gotta run.  

~joe

 

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Money 101.

Thomas,

Enjoyed your primer for the MTA.  Since you asked, I have several suggestions.

  • Rule of 72

First, I'd like to see you add something like the "rule of 72" to show why interest debt cannot be sustained.  72 remains the numerator and the rate of interest becomes the denominator.  So, if the rate of interest is 6%, the rule of 72 would be expressed as follows:

72 / 6 = 12 years

In this example, the money will double in around 12 years.  The other side of the coin is that within 12 years, a lender will have 100% of what they lent as interest profit.

  • The concept of "Permanent Money"

Do you think it would help people visualize our monetary system by saying something like all debt money, thus all of our money, is temporary.  When wealth money (free from debt) enters the system it is "permanent" money.

  • Gift, Lend and Spend

You are saying that there are three ways to enter money into circulation - gift, lend and spend.  Your conclusion is that spending is the best way which is compatible with the MTA.  I agree but I suspect that "gifting" and "lending" can also be used with a couple caveats.  

Lending - can be used, the only drawback is the interest.  For example, if Minnesota wanted to, they could provide 0% loans to acheive a desired impact on society.  I wrote a post about this; and said that we could greatly increase the efficency of every home and building with 0% loans.  The savings would be huge and the 0% loans would pay for themselves by the reduction in energy costs.

I don't think you can stop people from "borrowing," at least not within one generation.  No doubt our society has become far too comfortable with borrowing which monetizes tommorrows production today.  If people borrow with interest applied, we know that this cannot be sustained mathematically unless the interest money is created somehow.

This can be easily monitored and the annual interest payments can be calculated.  An equal, or greater amount of money must be spent into circulation to keep the circulation from contracting.

Larry

 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Money 101.

JK121 said:

Very interesting and very true.  Money as debt is very detrimental to society as we currently see.  

The only part I disagree with is that people's Incentive would be destroyed if money was just given.  The argument is that if everyone was constantly given money, commerce would stop because people would consume and consume till the economy was tapped out. I don't believe this for one second.  Total bs.

Interesting point - I hadn't thought about it that way but I think you're right. C. H. Douglas, a Scottish engineer, created a monetary system called "social credit" which is very similar to what Thomas has suggested with one big exception.  Instead of "spending" all money into circulation, he suggests that "dividends" be paid to every citizen regardless of whetther they are workers, stay at home moms, or retired individuals.

JK121 said:

 When you think about what wealth is, fundamentally it's not money.  It's the resources that we make or discover, oil gas, and so on.  So when you think about it, people who work in the banking industry should be not paid the money they make.  Considering how fundamentally money is a Nothing thing, and bankers produce NOTHING besides a money/debt trap.

I absolutely agree!

Larry

 

 

 

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Money 101.

Rule of 72.

I'll do the math on the rule of 72 as to how fast it can be used for a bank to double it's money.

Remember a bank can expand 10 times off of it's reserve base, so in effect a bank can, through the magic of compound interest, double it's money every 6 or 7 months?

I want to put this into a graphical form so it's easier for people to see.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Money 101.

I don't think you can stop people from "borrowing," at least not within one generation.  No doubt our society has become far too comfortable with borrowing which monetizes tommorrows production today. 

 

The reason our society has become far too comfortable with borrowing is because the only way we get money into circulation is through the lending process.  I highly doubt that the public would be comfortable with borrowing if they could have the money spent to them.  Would you rather have your paycheck spent to you or lent to you?

Lending - can be used, the only drawback is the interest.

What about the drawback that if the debt is destroyed so is the money?  If we only did lending at 0% interest how would the people ever get out of debt and be able to have a functioning society?  How can a nation become wealthy if they are forced to be in debt in order to have a money supply?

Is it logical to think that we can only be prosperous to go massively deeper into debt?  This is the economic model for a debt money system.

Is it logical to think that we can be prosperous if we have money spent into circulation, free from debt, on things that benifit the entire economy? 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments