Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Financial => Topic started by: Econ4Every1 on December 23, 2016, 11:52:34 AM

Title: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 23, 2016, 11:52:34 AM

Banks are not lending out customer deposits. Banks create their own little IOU which they then denominate in the federal government's unit of account (the US dollar - $). In other words, they peg their IOU to the government's currency. In doing so, the bank agrees to exchange its IOU for US dollars on demand. The peg to the US dollar also makes the bank's IOU acceptable to extinguish any taxes that you might owe to the US government, thus allowing the IOU to behave as "money".

When the bank approves your loan, a deposit is created at that time. The bank simply types numbers in an account equal to the loan value. So, if you obtained a loan for $30,000, the bank types "30,000". At this point, the IOUs are not "money"; you have to spend the deposit first. When you withdraw/spend those IOUs, the bank then exchanges its IOU for US dollars. The operation is simple and clear. We will assume that you do not bank at Chase but obtained a loan from Chase and that you are buying a car from a dealer who banks at Bank of America.

When you purchase the car, the dealer deposits the 30,000 in his account. $30,000 of Chase's reserves held at the Federal Reserve shift to Bank of America's reserve account at the Federal Reserve. The car dealer's checking account rises by 30,000 and the payment clears. End of transaction.

But you obtained a loan, so it's not the end.

When you obtained the loan, you agreed to give Chase your IOU in exchange, which it is now holding and it shows that you owe Chase $30,000. Furthermore, for the privilege of Chase creating some money for you to buy a car, Chase charges you a fee called "interest". Over time, as you make payments, you gradually shift reserves back to Chase from your bank until the 30,000 is extinguished. Yet, with each payment, there is "extra" wrapped inside of it. That "extra" is interest. When the loan is paid off, the 30,000 Chase IOUs are extinguished and what remains is profit for Chase.

So, the lesson here is:

The more private debt expands, the greater the profit potential for banks. As long as loans are not paid off early, the bank will realize the profit in full that it expects from the loan. Pay off early and you short the bank's profit.

The way that you expand private debt is by slashing the federal deficit and suppressing wages. Persistently reducing the federal deficit increases the consumer spending gap, which you then fill with bank loans and credit cards, so that consumers have "extra money" to consume goods and services. Coupled with an environment of wage suppression, consumers simply do not have the dollars they need to buy even the basic necessities (food, clothing for the kids, toothpaste, etc.) By supplementing their insufficient incomes with credit cards, they now proceed to purchase everyday essentials by swiping credit cards; items they would normally have purchased with their wages were those wages sufficient. The more that you slash the federal deficit, the more outstanding loans that you ensure cannot be paid off early.

In the end, when consumers cannot take on any more private debt, consumer spending contracts, business loses income, business lays off workers, unemployment rises and a recession occurs. There is no forgiveness for credit cards and loans, there is no bailout for consumers - consumers will still have to pay what they owe, though they are not responsible for the recession.

Once more, I will repeat President Obama's words again for clarity. In 2009, Obama asked that you be willing to take on even more private debt for the sake of "economic growth":
"...although there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks, "Where is our bailout?," they ask, the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth."

And so, we arrive at 2016 and we hear, "Under Obama, the economy has recovered, unemployment is low and all is well." Factually, the economy has never recovered. What has been hailed as the longest stretch of job growth in US history is actually the slowest recovery in US history. Since the crisis, there has been a bias towards low wage underemployment, which is now rampant. But above all, the federal deficit continues to be slashed in the face of a current account deficit, and so once more, the so-called "job growth" in the US economy has been fueled in the most unstable and irresponsible manner possible.

You can thank the Wall Street-backed Democratic establishment for that.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 24, 2016, 04:19:32 PM
To our readership. This individual in no way reflects the opinion of CPF.
Not only that, he does not reflect the opinions of any qualified economist and needs to find a new moniker.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 24, 2016, 10:19:08 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 24, 2016, 04:19:32 PM
To our readership. This individual in no way reflects the opinion of CPF.
Not only that, he does not reflect the opinions of any qualified economist and needs to find a new moniker.

To CPF's readership.  Note the silence, at least to this point, in actually rebutting what I've said.  Hopefully, that speaks volumes.

Oh and don't be fooled when the CPF faithful claim they "don't have time".  Also, don't be surprised when the subject of responses is the writer, rather than the content of the OP.

-Cheers
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Possum on December 25, 2016, 04:38:10 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 24, 2016, 10:19:08 PM
To CPF's readership.  Note the silence, at least to this point, in actually rebutting what I've said.  Hopefully, that speaks volumes.

Oh and don't be fooled when the CPF faithful claim they "don't have time".  Also, don't be surprised when the subject of responses is the writer, rather than the content of the OP.

-Cheers
I'm guessing the no response is not from "don't have time" but from the fact of having read your other thread and found it full of bull shit. Your comments were shot full of holes and it was YOU who did not answer.  Here's to hoping you can find something better to do.  Cheers
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:17:09 AM
Quote from: s3779m on December 25, 2016, 04:38:10 AM
I'm guessing the no response is not from "don't have time" but from the fact of having read your other thread and found it full of bull shit. Your comments were shot full of holes and it was YOU who did not answer.  Here's to hoping you can find something better to do.  Cheers

The silence is deafening.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: walkstall on December 26, 2016, 08:37:06 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:17:09 AM
The silence is deafening.

That or your post are to long.  I myself find them a waste of my time reading.  That and you posts should be in The Nut House.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 26, 2016, 08:39:08 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:17:09 AM
The silence is deafening.
It's not that what you know is necessarily wrong, it's your conclusions based on limited knowledge/facts that bring you to false ratiocinations.
Yes, some of what you say can be spot on, but it's what you don't know that inhibits your ability to understand and grasp the entire picture.

You have much to learn and Mises is a great starting point, so I suggest you read the following link, with the knowledge that both party's are trying to run our country based on socialist ideas.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Mises.html
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:38:43 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 26, 2016, 08:39:08 AM
It's not that what you know is necessarily wrong, it's your conclusions based on limited knowledge/facts that bring you to false ratiocinations.
Yes, some of what you say can be spot on, but it's what you don't know that inhibits your ability to understand and grasp the entire picture.

You have much to learn and Mises is a great starting point, so I suggest you read the following link, with the knowledge that both party's are trying to run our country based on socialist ideas.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Mises.html

I don't know, or you are incapable of realizing that the economy fundamentally changed in early 1970's but your understanding of economics did not.

For example...

Under a gold standard, assuming ceteris paribus, every dollar spent into the economy without an equal amount of gold obtained will cause other dollars in the economy to decrease in value as each dollar had a claim on the gold that backed them, even if only in part.

Thus, if the government had created  $1 million dollars and spent that money and mined exactly $1 million dollars in gold (or whatever the appropriate ratio is), then the dollars the government created would not end with inflation, would it?

Today, dollars aren't backed by gold, they are instead a claim on any good or service priced in dollars. 

Thus, if the government creates $1 million dollars and purchases $1 million dollars in productivity (assuming that what it purchases are of reasonable use or desire to the private sector), then inflation is unlikely to occur, unless, again, as I've said, there are shortages of labor and resources.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 26, 2016, 09:54:37 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 26, 2016, 08:38:43 PM
I don't know, or you are incapable of realizing that the economy fundamentally changed in early 1970's but your understanding of economics did not.

For example...

Under a gold standard, assuming ceteris paribus, every dollar spent into the economy without an equal amount of gold obtained will cause other dollars in the economy to decrease in value as each dollar had a claim on the gold that backed them, even if only in part.

Thus, if the government had created  $1 million dollars and spent that money and mined exactly $1 million dollars in gold (or whatever the appropriate ratio is), then the dollars the government created would not end with inflation, would it?

Today, dollars aren't backed by gold, they are instead a claim on any good or service priced in dollars. 

Thus, if the government creates $1 million dollars and purchases $1 million dollars in productivity (assuming that what it purchases are of reasonable use or desire to the private sector), then inflation is unlikely to occur, unless, again, as I've said, there are shortages of labor and resources.
You just made my point. You foolishly believe the so called Deficit numbers, as if they are the only liabilities the US has, when in truth, we are in debt somewhere around 200 and 30 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and it only gets worse every quarter.
Stop blindly believing all the bull shit the govt tells you, they only tell you what they want you to believe.

Here's an article North wrote a few years back that may open your eyes a bit.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/11776.cfm
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 26, 2016, 09:54:37 PM
You just made my point. You foolishly believe the so called Deficit numbers, as if they are the only liabilities the US has, when in truth, we are in debt somewhere around 200 and 30 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and it only gets worse every quarter.
Stop blindly believing all the bull shit the govt tells you, they only tell you what they want you to believe.

Here's an article North wrote a few years back that may open your eyes a bit.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/11776.cfm

First.  You didn't actually respond to my post again.  You do what you often do which is move the goalpost without addressing the content of my response, directly anyway.

I think the WP nailed it....

"The numbers are big, but are lacking a lot of context. This is what is known as "unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon." According to the Social Security trustees, that amounts to $23.1 trillion for Social Security.  And the figure through 2087 — some 75 years from now — is actually just $9.6 trillion.

But a better way to express these numbers is as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. That $23 trillion turns out to be 1.4 percent of GDP, or 4 percent of taxable payroll.

Depending on which economist you consult, this is either manageable or a potential problem. There is certainly a gap, and either payroll taxes or federal individual and corporate income taxes would need to be raised, possibly significantly, in order to close it."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/?utm_term=.76a9b68c8d22

Furthermore, I addressed this in the OP, the dollar is not backed by gold.  When the government creates and spends money to pay for these obligations, it is creating the productivity that backs the value of the dollars created.  This increases GDP relative to the spending it must do to pay for it's programs.

So go back and address the OP or this conversation grinds to a halt before it begins.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:06:04 AM
First.  You didn't actually respond to my post again.  You do what you often do which is move the goalpost without addressing the content of my response, directly anyway.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLgW6wv8.gif&hash=53bf26b796de08415ae7722dead649b92a249387)

Because I can't respond to something so full of holes.

QuoteI think the WP nailed it....
WP?
Quote
"The numbers are big, but are lacking a lot of context. This is what is known as "unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon." According to the Social Security trustees, that amounts to $23.1 trillion for Social Security.  And the figure through 2087 — some 75 years from now — is actually just $9.6 trillion.

But a better way to express these numbers is as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. That $23 trillion turns out to be 1.4 percent of GDP, or 4 percent of taxable payroll.

What 23 trillion? Try 223 trillion in unfunded liabilities.(2010 numbers)

QuoteDepending on which economist you consult, this is either manageable or a potential problem. There is certainly a gap, and either payroll taxes or federal individual and corporate income taxes would need to be raised, possibly significantly, in order to close it."[/i]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/?utm_term=.76a9b68c8d22

Furthermore, I addressed this in the OP, the dollar is not backed by gold.  When the government creates and spends money to pay for these obligations, it is creating the productivity that backs the value of the dollars created.  This increases GDP relative to the spending it must do to pay for it's programs.

So go back and address the OP or this conversation grinds to a halt before it begins.
You fail to grasp one key ingredient. They're lying to you! We're spending today, what the next generation will be burdened with.
You seem to think the game is on the level, like playing roulette in a casino, problem is, the game is totally rigged, and even if by pure luck you were to win, the rules are spelled out in such a way, that you'd still wind up paying.
You seem to think Obozo is actually lowering the debt, yet every year he gets another continuing resolution, (not a balanced budget) and every year we run deeper in debt.

It's like the unemployment numbers, where the govt creates the illusion that his figures are merely a couple of percentage points off for where Bush stood, but those are the U-1 numbers, the truth is closer to U-6, but even those are blatant lies because Commiecare killed off millions of full-time jobs, in turn splitting them in two.
So what happens when everyone suddenly works part time? The govt records that as employed.

Point being, the numbers you rattle off are all faked, it really is that simple, and we're in a world of hurt over it.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PM
Because I can't respond to something so full of holes.

Translation:  "I don't know how to respond."

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMWP?

You can't possibly be that obtuse?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk563%2Fcsbrown28%2FCapture_zpsdjr5mizn.jpg&hash=a7228ab517bf40986aba438552fd379cfe428125) (http://s1116.photobucket.com/user/csbrown28/media/Capture_zpsdjr5mizn.jpg.html)

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMWhat 23 trillion? Try 223 trillion in unfunded liabilities.(2010 numbers)

Reading is fundamental my friend, the article was isolating just the Social Security component of "unfunded liabilities".

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMYou fail to grasp one key ingredient. They're lying to you! We're spending today, what the next generation will be burdened with.
You seem to think the game is on the level, like playing roulette in a casino, problem is, the game is totally rigged, and even if by pure luck you were to win, the rules are spelled out in such a way, that you'd still wind up paying.
You seem to think Obozo is actually lowering the debt, yet every year he gets another continuing resolution, (not a balanced budget) and every year we run deeper in debt.

So it's the next generation that will have this terrible burden?  What about the last generation, or the generation before that, or before that?  We've been running a "debt" for most of our nation's 250-year history.  Why haven't any of those generations had to suffer this terrible burden you claim is right around the corner?

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMIt's like the unemployment numbers, where the govt creates the illusion that his figures are merely a couple of percentage points off for where Bush stood, but those are the U-1 numbers, the truth is closer to U-6, but even those are blatant lies because Commiecare killed off millions of full-time jobs, in turn splitting them in two.

I won't defend the government's reporting on unemployment.  The sheep just take what their given and believe what they see on TV.  If anyone honored their civic duty they'ed take the time to look up the numbers for themselves.  The government posts everything you need to know.  You just have to take the time to look them up.

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMSo what happens when everyone suddenly works part time? The govt records that as employed.

Agreed, and when a person making $80k gets laid off and takes a job at Walmart because they can't find work in their field, there is no accounting for their under-employment.

Quote from: Solar on December 27, 2016, 07:12:31 PMPoint being, the numbers you rattle off are all faked, it really is that simple, and we're in a world of hurt over it.

As usual, all silly assertions with no facts.  But I'm quickly learning that facts don't matter to people like you. 
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 27, 2016, 09:49:27 PM
Translation:  "I don't know how to respond."
Problem is, there is no debating a false premise.

QuoteYou can't possibly be that obtuse?

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk563%2Fcsbrown28%2FCapture_zpsdjr5mizn.jpg&hash=a7228ab517bf40986aba438552fd379cfe428125) (http://s1116.photobucket.com/user/csbrown28/media/Capture_zpsdjr5mizn.jpg.html)
Cut the bull shit troll, either quit being lazy and spell it out, or don't bother posting.
WP is not standard anywhere but within their own editorial desk, and neither you or I work there.
Google comes up with
Wikipedia White phosphorus WordPress Warsaw Pact Wojsko Polskie

QuoteReading is fundamental my friend, the article was isolating just the Social Security component of "unfunded liabilities".
Like I'm about to read drivel from a leftist rag supporting more leftist BS?
Get real troll, nothing comes from that rag deserving anything beyond cage liner for parrots.

QuoteSo it's the next generation that will have this terrible burden?  What about the last generation, or the generation before that, or before that?  We've been running a "debt" for most of our nation's 250-year history.  Why haven't any of those generations had to suffer this terrible burden you claim is right around the corner?

Actually, we agree, it was the last generation that burdened us with this bloated govt concept, an idea that we must accept whatever they throw at us, every lie they tell is irrefutable because they are the final arbiter and we have no other recourse.
Had the previous generation stopped the growth of govt when it had a chance, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, which is why we're here now fighting this nonsense you claim is a working economy. Nothing could be further from the truth!

QuoteI won't defend the government's reporting on unemployment.  The sheep just take what their given and believe what they see on TV.  If anyone honored their civic duty they'ed take the time to look up the numbers for themselves.  The government posts everything you need to know.  You just have to take the time to look them up.
Wow, and like a good little lemming, you believe what you just wrote.
Let me translate. The govt may lie, but they give us all the information to prove they lie.
Let that absorb for a moment, shall we? Now had you read what I posted and quit relying on leftist rags as your source for God knows what, you'd have realized the govt does not give you all the data on purpose for a reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

Here, let me quote an important part of the article, and this time read it, dammit!

Jim Puplava: Professor, when the CBO publishes its projections they use something called the extended baseline forecast. They also have something called the alternative fiscal scenario, which is basically more realistic. This year they reported only the extended baseline forecast. Why did they do that?

Professor Kotlikoff: I don't know. They claim it wasn't for political reasons and I believe them. There are very good economists at the CBO. The director is a very good economist, but you have to wonder why is it that for the last 6 or 7 years they put out the extended baseline as well as the alternative fiscal scenario at the same time so everybody could see what they really project versus what really amounts to a lie about the fiscal future of the country.

I sent him [head of the CBO] an email and asked whether he was under some sort of political pressure to withhold this information and he said that was a big insult, and he was very upset with me for suggesting that. But then he said that the reason he hadn't released it was because they didn't think anyone was interested. I said, well obviously we're interested—it's the only thing worth looking at.

QuoteAgreed, and when a person making $80k gets laid off and takes a job at Walmart because they can't find work in their field, there is no accounting for their under-employment.
[/i]
Did you get that? They purposely avoided giving out all the information because they claim no one cares.
Think about that, the CBO is charged with disseminating facts and information to the general public, but leave out the most important part, because they claim we're not interested. So why release any information in the first place if no one reads it anyway?

As usual, all silly assertions with no facts.  But I'm quickly learning that facts don't matter to people like you.
Facts? You quote a leftist rag and claim you're posting facts? WTF?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 08:26:58 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AM
Problem is, there is no debating a false premise.

Of course you can debate a false premise.  Just state why it's false......With facts, not conjecture or assertions.

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMCut the bull shit troll, either quit being lazy and spell it out, or don't bother posting.

You can't be bothered to read down 4 sentenses and I'm lazy?   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMWP is not standard anywhere but within their own editorial desk, and neither you or I work there.

Again, stop being lazy and let your eyes drift to the bottom of the paragraph....

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMActually, we agree, it was the last generation that burdened us with this bloated govt concept, an idea that we must accept whatever they throw at us, every lie they tell is irrefutable because they are the final arbiter and we have no other recourse.
Had the previous generation stopped the growth of govt when it had a chance, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today...

Define "growth of government" for me?

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMwhich is why we're here now fighting this nonsense you claim is a working economy. Nothing could be further from the truth!

You seriously have a reading comprehension problem.  Where did I say we have a "working economy"?

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMWow, and like a good little lemming, you believe what you just wrote.
Let me translate. The govt may lie, but they give us all the information to prove they lie.

No, the government does lie and yes if you look hard enough, you can find the information to demonstrate it.

Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMLet that absorb for a moment, shall we? Now had you read what I posted and quit relying on leftist rags as your source for God knows what, you'd have realized the govt does not give you all the data on purpose for a reason. Can you guess what that reason is?

I don't rely on the Washington Post for anything.  In that case they happened to be right.  Rush and Beck and Jones are all Rightist hacks, but sometimes they are right.  Austrianism is about as destructive economic idea as there is, but that is still a lot of truth in the things that are said.

I think it was Aristotle that said, "It is the mark of an educated mind that can entertain an idea without accepting it".  You are so partisan you can't even see straight.  You can't even contemplate an idea if it doesn't come from a source that you accept.  You are the enemy of free people despite your fervent claims to the contrary.



Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AMJim Puplava: Professor, when the CBO publishes its projections they use something called the extended baseline forecast. They also have something called the alternative fiscal scenario, which is basically more realistic. This year they reported only the extended baseline forecast. Why did they do that?

Professor Kotlikoff: I don't know. They claim it wasn't for political reasons and I believe them. There are very good economists at the CBO. The director is a very good economist, but you have to wonder why is it that for the last 6 or 7 years they put out the extended baseline as well as the alternative fiscal scenario at the same time so everybody could see what they really project versus what really amounts to a lie about the fiscal future of the country.

I sent him [head of the CBO] an email and asked whether he was under some sort of political pressure to withhold this information and he said that was a big insult, and he was very upset with me for suggesting that. But then he said that the reason he hadn't released it was because they didn't think anyone was interested. I said, well obviously we're interested—it's the only thing worth looking at.
Facts? You quote a leftist rag and claim you're posting facts? WTF?

The people at the CBO may be good econonomists, I don't know, but any claim about "unfunded liabilities" is a stupid one for reasons I've already made clear.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 28, 2016, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 08:26:58 AM
Of course you can debate a false premise.  Just state why it's false......With facts, not conjecture or assertions.
Jeeeez, I just posted an excerpt from an article explaining why it's a false premise, and here you are asking for proof? How thick are you? Oh wait, you used a leftist rag as your evidence. :rolleyes:

QuoteYou can't be bothered to read down 4 sentenses and I'm lazy?   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, stop being lazy and let your eyes drift to the bottom of the paragraph....
Hell no! You just as well have quoted Keynes, they're both on the same level.

QuoteDefine "growth of government" for me?
Are you fuckin serious?

QuoteYou seriously have a reading comprehension problem.  Where did I say we have a "working economy"?
Your every thread on this forum to date!

QuoteNo, the government does lie and yes if you look hard enough, you can find the information to demonstrate it.
Yet you're willing to post their daTA AS IF IT MEANS SOMETHING?

QuoteI don't rely on the Washington Post for anything.  In that case they happened to be right.  Rush and Beck and Jones are all Rightist hacks, but sometimes they are right.  Austrianism is about as destructive economic idea as there is, but that is still a lot of truth in the things that are said.
I'll let your post speak for itself. Those reading know exactly what's wrong with it.

QuoteI think it was Aristotle that said, "It is the mark of an educated mind that can entertain an idea without accepting it".  You are so partisan you can't even see straight.  You can't even contemplate an idea if it doesn't come from a source that you accept.  You are the enemy of free people despite your fervent claims to the contrary.
Math knows no partisanship, 2+2 will always = 4, to even attempt to understand an opposing view makes me a participant in your insanity, and that sir, I will not take part in.

QuoteThe people at the CBO may be good econonomists, I don't know, but any claim about "unfunded liabilities" is a stupid one for reasons I've already made clear.
Which I gave evidence proving you wrong.
In Keynesian econ, it's easy to pretend truth is relevant to its surroundings, but in Austrian econ, where math is applied straight forward and the govt isn't allowed to print money out of thin air without consequence, it's a simple straightforward equation to project future earnings and losses.

Why is it so hard for you to understand basic math and simple principles of a balanced budget like all Americans have to deal with daily?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 09:50:49 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2016, 09:40:37 AM
Are you fuckin serious?

Yes, tell me how you define "big government".

Would you agree with Google?

"government perceived as excessively interventionist and intruding into all aspects of the lives of its citizens."
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 07:19:41 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 28, 2016, 09:50:49 PM
Yes, tell me how you define "big government".

Would you agree with Google?

"government perceived as excessively interventionist and intruding into all aspects of the lives of its citizens."
You'll do anything to avoid actual debate, won't you?
The reason for my astonishment in your inquiry is it's tantamount to asking what are my issues with child rape.
The answer should be self-evident, that is, to anyone with a modicum of understanding or common sense.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 08:29:07 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 07:19:41 AM
You'll do anything to avoid actual debate, won't you?
The reason for my astonishment in your inquiry is it's tantamount to asking what are my issues with child rape.
The answer should be self-evident, that is, to anyone with a modicum of understanding or common sense.

"Common sense is not so common."
― Voltaire

The question was a simple one.   When debating, it's customary to ensure that when talking about a word or a concept that people agree on what those concepts mean, so while I agree that some things should be obvious, given the radical disagreement in our positions, I don't think it's "astonishing" to assure that we're defining a group of words the same way.  Now it's ironic because you could have simply responded to my request, either time and that would be the end of it, yet you continue to obfuscate and then, project  upon me the very tactic you are employing.  How very narcissistic of you.

Now here is what strikes me as odd.

Despite the collective belief that I'm an inexperienced idiot, I came here in good faith to share some ideas and debate them with people who clearly don't agree.  That's fine.  That's one of the reasons I do it.  I want to know how people I disagree with think.  I haven't been overtly rude, though I have responded to some to some rudeness.

But here is the thing.  You believe to have the superior opinion.  That I am mistaken, why not be amicable and take some time to help me understand you point of view?  The insults, taunts, claims of disinterest, they are all consistent with people who aren't secure in their own positions.  All of this bickering and partisan name-calling and accusations of wrongdoing are signs, to anyone that understand human psychology, consistent with insecurity and anti-intellectual behavior.  You despise me because I am smart and I can't be intimidated or angered.

I hope you fellas can learn to respect that and live up to the "Christian ideal" most of you claim to value so highly.

Here are a few quotes to remind you.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/getting_along_with_others
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:10:26 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 08:29:07 AM
"Common sense is not so common."
― Voltaire

The question was a simple one.   When debating, it's customary to ensure that when talking about a word or a concept that people agree on what those concepts mean, so while I agree that some things should be obvious, given the radical disagreement in our positions, I don't think it's "astonishing" to assure that we're defining a group of words the same way.  Now it's ironic because you could have simply responded to my request, either time and that would be the end of it, yet you continue to obfuscate and then, project  upon me the very tactic you are employing.  How very narcissistic of you.
Here's the problem. You don't get the fact that you're trying to debate the intricacies of a system that can't support itself under free mkt principles.

QuoteDespite the collective belief that I'm an inexperienced idiot, I came here in good faith to share some ideas and debate them with people who clearly don't agree.  That's fine.  That's one of the reasons I do it.  I want to know how people I disagree with think.  I haven't been overtly rude, though I have responded to some to some rudeness.

But here is the thing.  You believe to have the superior opinion.  That I am mistaken, why not be amicable and take some time to help me understand you point of view?  The insults, taunts, claims of disinterest, they are all consistent with people who aren't secure in their own positions.  All of this bickering and partisan name-calling and accusations of wrongdoing are signs, to anyone that understand human psychology, consistent with insecurity and anti-intellectual behavior.  You despise me because I am smart and I can't be intimidated or angered.
How much clearer can I be? You're trying to debate the efficacy of socialism/cronyism in a free mkt/Capitalistic society.
Can you see just how ludicrous that is to people that had successful careers under a system where the govt had yet to dominate?

QuoteI hope you fellas can learn to respect that and live up to the "Christian ideal" most of you claim to value so highly.

Here are a few quotes to remind you.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/getting_along_with_others
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What the Hell? Not one person posting in Finance is a Christian as far as I know, aside from the fact that debate and religion are in no way synonymous to one another.

Now do you get why no one wants to entertain your lunacy? By doing so, validates its existence in a world that despises communism.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:42:59 AM
Still waiting!

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".

So what's your argument?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:10:26 AM
Here's the problem. You don't get the fact that you're trying to debate the intricacies of a system that can't support itself under free mkt principles.

Setting aside for just one second that I haven't prescribed (advocated for) an economic system, what is it exactly that you think I'm endorsing that is inconsistent with the free market?

Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:10:26 AMHow much clearer can I be? You're trying to debate the efficacy of socialism/cronyism in a free mkt/Capitalistic society.
Can you see just how ludicrous that is to people that had successful careers under a system where the govt had yet to dominate?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Define "Socialism" for me, because despite your (possible) objections to the idea that it's obvious, it most certainly is not.

Now I'll do you the favor of sharing my basic understanding.

A socialist system is one where the government controls the means of production.

Do you believe that I'm endorsing (again despite the fact that I haven't actually endorsed anything) socialism as I have defined it?

Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:10:26 AMWhat the Hell? Not one person posting in Finance is a Christian as far as I know....

Really?  Color me surprised.  I certainly didn't mean it in a derogatory sense.  There is a lot to like about Christianity.  Would you mind sharing your religion/ non-religion with us?  I'm curious.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 11:53:28 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 11:13:05 AM
Setting aside for just one second that I haven't prescribed (advocated for) an economic system, what is it exactly that you think I'm endorsing that is inconsistent with the free market?

Define "Socialism" for me, because despite your (possible) objections to the idea that it's obvious, it most certainly is not.

Now I'll do you the favor of sharing my basic understanding.

A socialist system is one where the government controls the means of production.

Do you believe that I'm endorsing (again despite the fact that I haven't actually endorsed anything) socialism as I have defined it?
Like printing money out of thin air? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:42:59 AM
Still waiting!

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".

So what's your argument?
Still waiting....
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 11:53:28 AM
Like printing money out of thin air? :rolleyes:

All currency is created out of thin air.  If there were no money created out of thin air, there wouldn't be any currency.

Having said that, creating currency has nothing to do with Socialism.  It's hard to believe you sit here and attempt to decry my lack of knowledge when you know so little about something so simple.

Please, find me an accepted definition of socialism that includes, as a requirement, "creating money out of thin air".  Are you saying that a Socialist government couldn't work under a gold standard?

Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:17:44 PM
All currency is created out of thin air.  If there were no currency created out of thin air, there wouldn't be any currency.

Having said that, creating currency has nothing to do with Socialism.  It's hard to believe you sit here and attempt to decry my lack of knowledge when you know so little about something so simple.

Please, find me an accepted definition of socialism that includes, as a requirement, "creating money out of thin air".  Are you saying that a Socialist government couldn't work under a gold standard?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:17:44 PM
All currency is created out of thin air.  If there were no money created out of thin air, there wouldn't be any currency.

No its not, its created by mutal agreement of the populace. For example, what makes gold so valuable? Mutual agreement.

Quote
Having said that, creating currency has nothing to do with Socialism.

Strawman. Just when was that said?

Quote
  It's hard to believe you sit here and attempt to decry my lack of knowledge when you know so little about something so simple.

You mean when you really want to push the strawman.

Quote
Please, find me an accepted definition of socialism that includes, as a requirement, "creating money out of thin air".  Are you saying that a Socialist government couldn't work under a gold standard?

You mean find an acceptable  definition as you deem. How bout you find an acceptable definition as I deem?

After all, weren't we all versed on socialism and its evils in middle school? How'd you get left out of the loop?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: zewazir on December 29, 2016, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:17:44 PM
All currency is created out of thin air.  If there were no money created out of thin air, there wouldn't be any currency.
You keep getting this wrong. In a properly balanced free market economic system currency is issued in response to the growth of real wealth within that system.

When the government creates currency out of thin air, they do so through deficit spending. The act of doing so has two basic consequences. First, it creates inflation due to the fact that money is simply a concept to represent real wealth. If you create more money to represent the same amount of wealth, the buying power of each economic unit of money is diminished.

Second, government deficit spending alters free market. Now the second consequence does not HAVE to occur, if the government contract were limited to expectation and performance. But the fact is government contracts invariably come with a whole host of government regulations. Any affected markets dealing with government contracts become influenced by those regulations, thus putting at least a significant aspect of those markets under government control (ie: socialism.)
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 29, 2016, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 29, 2016, 01:17:44 PM
All currency is created out of thin air.  If there were no money created out of thin air, there wouldn't be any currency.

Having said that, creating currency has nothing to do with Socialism.  It's hard to believe you sit here and attempt to decry my lack of knowledge when you know so little about something so simple.

Please, find me an accepted definition of socialism that includes, as a requirement, "creating money out of thin air".  Are you saying that a Socialist government couldn't work under a gold standard?
I can see I don't need to address this nonsense, considering Gouhlardi and Zewazir spelled it out better than I would have, though getting into detail with you truly is a waste of time because you are still stuck on the basics of econ 101.

Now, last chance or face a timeout.

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".


You said it, now address it, here or in a new thread, matters not.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: taxed on December 30, 2016, 05:47:24 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 03:13:50 PM
I can see I don't need to address this nonsense, considering Gouhlardi and Zewazir spelled it out better than I would have, though getting into detail with you truly is a waste of time because you are still stuck on the basics of econ 101.

Now, last chance or face a timeout.

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".


You said it, now address it, here or in a new thread, matters not.

Is this what he's on now?  He really is a Marxist.  It's becoming obvious to me he's one of Bernie's kids...
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 30, 2016, 05:50:18 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 30, 2016, 05:47:24 AM
Is this what he's on now?  He really is a Marxist.  It's becoming obvious to me he's one of Bernie's kids...
I really don't think he knows what it even means, Hell the guy came in with Econ for a moniker and proved he knows absolutely zero about the free mkt.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: taxed on December 30, 2016, 05:54:57 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 30, 2016, 05:50:18 AM
I really don't think he knows what it even means, Hell the guy came in with Econ for a moniker and proved he knows absolutely zero about the free mkt.

I still can't believe he's in his late 40s.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on December 30, 2016, 05:59:19 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 30, 2016, 05:54:57 AM
I still can't believe he's in his late 40s.

I'm still waiting to see what credentials trump two businessmen on the economy
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 30, 2016, 06:02:51 AM
Quote from: taxed on December 30, 2016, 05:54:57 AM
I still can't believe he's in his late 40s.
With a total of 5 years interest in economics.
Hell, mine started at 5 years old when my aunt opened my first savings account at Wells Fargo in 1959 with one dollar.
Of course, one dollar then was near $20 today in buying power.
Thanks for the early econ lesson Aunt Marge.... :cool:
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: taxed on December 30, 2016, 06:04:53 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 30, 2016, 05:59:19 AM
I'm still waiting to see what credential trump two businessmen on the economy

It's the difference between fantasy stock picking versus putting your actual money up.  A lot of people kill it in the fantasy scenario, but get murdered when they start putting their money in.  The mentality just changes and economics become so much more clear when you have to actually do your own hunting and fishing, economically speaking.  He's never had that moment when his stomach just drops and knees get weak.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 30, 2016, 07:09:19 PM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PM
No its not, its created by mutual agreement of the populace. For example, what makes gold so valuable? Mutual agreement.

That doesn't change the fact that all US currency exists as the result of a debt (save coins). If you don't understand that, you don't understand our monetary system.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PMStrawman. Just when was that said?

I was replying to:

Quote from: Solar on December 29, 2016, 10:10:26 AM
Here's the problem. You don't get the fact that you're trying to debate the intricacies of a system that can't support itself under free mkt principles.
How much clearer can I be? You're trying to debate the efficacy of socialism/cronyism in a free mkt/Capitalistic society.
Can you see just how ludicrous that is to people that had successful careers under a system where the govt had yet to dominate?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PMYou mean when you really want to push the strawman.

Look up the strawman fallacy, because you're using it wrong.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PMYou mean find an acceptable definition as you deem. How bout you find an acceptable definition as I deem?

No, there are only correct definitions and people's incorrect interpretations of them, otherwise, we'd never be able to have a conversation.  What I asked was for you to find an acceptable definition, acceptable as written in a dictionary or other universally accepted source.

Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 29, 2016, 01:28:13 PMAfter all, weren't we all versed on socialism and its evils in middle school? How'd you get left out of the loop?

But that's just it, so far you've demonstrated you don't even know what Socialism is.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on December 30, 2016, 07:16:50 PM
Is the "Loanable Funds Theory "true or false?

Definition

[/quote]Financial assets or money that is available to borrow. This theory is based on the concept that corporations providing goods and services demand capital. Purchasers of goods and services provide capital. Borrowers demand loanable funds that are indirectly made available by savers who allow banks access to their assets.


Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/16518/loanable_funds_theory.html#ixzz4UNk2d4mE[/quote]
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on December 30, 2016, 07:20:02 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 30, 2016, 07:09:19 PM

No, there are only correct definitions and people's incorrect interpretations of them, otherwise, we'd never be able to have a conversation.  What I asked was for you to find an acceptable definition, acceptable as written in a dictionary or other universally accepted source.

But that's just it, so far you've demonstrated you don't even know what Socialism is.

So far you haven't proven to me you have the credentials to tell me whether I'm wrong or right.

Now, third time, you scoffed at Solar's and Taxed's businessman credentials.

Third time: what are your credentials
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on December 30, 2016, 07:49:58 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on December 30, 2016, 07:16:50 PM
Is the "Loanable Funds Theory "true or false?

Definition

Financial assets or money that is available to borrow. This theory is based on the concept that corporations providing goods and services demand capital. Purchasers of goods and services provide capital. Borrowers demand loanable funds that are indirectly made available by savers who allow banks access to their assets.


Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/16518/loanable_funds_theory.html#ixzz4UNk2d4mE
You were asked to address your post and ignored the request and were told you'd be put in timeout if you didn't.
When you come back, make the address your first post when you return or it will be your last post.
You are now in timeout.

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: taxed on December 31, 2016, 12:41:38 PM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 30, 2016, 07:20:02 PM
So far you haven't proven to me you have the credentials to tell me whether I'm wrong or right.

Now, third time, you scoffed at Solar's and Taxed's businessman credentials.

Third time: what are your credentials

That's one of the signatures of a true Marxist.  They can't have any respect or acknowledgement of one's experience, because they need to give the illusion that they know better.  The academic knows they must compete against life experience and critical thinking.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 30, 2016, 07:49:58 PM
You were asked to address your post and ignored the request and were told you'd be put in timeout if you didn't.
When you come back, make the address your first post when you return or it will be your last post.
You are now in timeout.

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".

Few thoughts on what is sure to be my last post here at CPF.

First, I'd really like to genuinely thank everyone for taking the time to engage in discussion.  It's unfortunate that we were unable as people, as Americans, to work harder to make an effort to find more commonality.  It seems that if this kind of behavior continues to proliferate, the result will be more dangerous and disruptive for our children than any drug epidemic, the threat of terrorism or fear of cultural immorality.  It will divide the greatest nation on earth and will no doubt leave for our children a nation much, much worse off than the one we were given.  They will undoubtedly look back to this period and yearn for it, even with all its imperfections.

Now I've been put to an ultimatum.  Answer a moderators question or be banned.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk563%2Fcsbrown28%2FBanned_zpsa8jvgrx2.jpg&hash=b550b09b3713950717f498178708bed86df100ae) (http://s1116.photobucket.com/user/csbrown28/media/Banned_zpsa8jvgrx2.jpg.html)


Frankly, I find it shocking and incredibly hypocritical that members of this forum could be so selective in their outrage as to justify such an unprincipled action.  Not answering a question is not a violation of the terms of service.  First, because it was not the thrust of the conversation, a conversation that I started.  And second because of the way that I said it.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk563%2Fcsbrown28%2FCapture_zpsyts75sko.jpg&hash=14ad21cd3c2c83f1d7329d65e60045c63dc15cbe) (http://s1116.photobucket.com/user/csbrown28/media/Capture_zpsyts75sko.jpg.html)

Apparently not.  You might want to take that down.

To say that there is "an argument to be made" is not the same as saying that you believe or are necessarily convinced of that argument. The implication of that statement is to recognize that there is value in a discussion and learning all point of view on a particular topic.  Indeed, that's what I'm doing here.  Having a discussion with people I disagree with.  To take the time to learn, even be influenced by those that I disagree with, even if I don't list the changes that my conversations with self-proclaimed conservatives have had on me, I assure you that in speaking to people in several Conservative forums I have come to understand and be considerate of many things that I might not have otherwise have considered without having had this experience.   Lastly, I said that I would be happy to debate the topic of income inequality in a new thread, but that derailing threads on side topics are generally considered poor forum ettiqute.

For instance, I think there is an argument to be made for parents to limit their children's access to cell phones, there is an argument to be made for leaving marriage as a strictly religious institution and removing the state's role in it all together.  There is an argument to be made that the President's executive powers should be more limited.  There's an argument to be made that judicial activism has exceeded the power of the Constitution.  There is an argument to be made that the terms "rape culture" and "white privilege" are the result of a generation of sheltered children who are now adults and don't know how to resolve conflict without resorting to manipulation of those in authority.....ect....ect.

Now I, of course, have ideas of my own about all of these, but in a nation where ideas can be changed, where our founding document can be amended, discussion and evidence should matter.  It should be of the highest cultural significance.  The problem is that there are elements on opposing sides who scoff at the simple idea of having that conversation.  Now I don't claim to know what the "founders intended", but what I do know is that they came from fairly diverse backgrounds and the nation they were trying to build was even more diverse and I'm certain that they understood the value of conversation.  The idea that it was ok to consider ideas of those they vehemently disagreed with even if they didn't accept them.

I'm not here calling people stupid.  I don't demonize the opinions of others, even when I disagree.  I've never said that Conservative ideas are destructive.  The only thing I find destructive is the intolerance on the Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian or whatever words you wish to use to self-identify, the point is the thing that is most destructive is the intolerance of simple conversation (again, on all sides of the political debate).

Banning me for refusal to answer a question in this context is no different than what the false-Liberals are doing when they cleanse their colleges of speakers who they believe have ideas that they disagree with.  When Black Lives Matter interrupt conversations of those that disagree or feminists demand that their ideas be held sacred and unquestioning.  That somehow even hearing an argument will offend them. Thier claims and ideas are no longer up for debate and have become sacred. 

That is what has happened here.  My decision, my refusal to "fall in line" has been met with exile from the group.

I can't be forced to answer a question and I find it sad that there isn't a single person willing to step out of line in this group on principled grounds to call out this unprincipled behavior.  I expect this kind of behavior from radical progressives.  Conservatives in my experience are more likely to stick to the principles they set for themselves.  I guess what we're seeing is a change, where Conservatives are ok to adopt the worst of Progressive intolerance.  Intolerance they claim to despise. 

How ironic.

In the end, I really don't care if you remove me (for not answering a question...lol)...  The point is, you, the Conservative member of this forum, should care.

-Cheers
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 10:21:20 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on December 30, 2016, 07:20:02 PM
So far you haven't proven to me you have the credentials to tell me whether I'm wrong or right.

Now, third time, you scoffed at Solar's and Taxed's businessman credentials.

Third time: what are your credentials

To answer this, before I'm removed...

What difference does it make, my credentials"?   As if credentials somehow make you right.

Look up Warren Mosler who supports the same ideas I do.  He worked in the banking system for 20 some odd years, was a hedge fund manager (where he developed the ideas that I share with you and used them too much success).  Today he is requested to consult with people, companies and even entire nations (Italy for instance).  He has run several businesses including is own car company.  So tell me, do his credentials matter?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 10:23:23 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 09:59:31 AM
Few thoughts on what is sure to be my last post here at CPF.

First, I'd really like to genuinely thank everyone for taking the time to engage in discussion.  It's unfortunate that we were unable as people, as Americans, to work harder to make an effort to find more commonality.  It seems that if this kind of behavior continues to proliferate, the result will be more dangerous and disruptive for our children than any drug epidemic, the threat of terrorism or fear of cultural immorality.  It will divide the greatest nation on earth and will no doubt leave for our children a nation much, much worse off than the one we were given.  They will undoubtedly look back to this period and yearn for it, even with all its imperfections.

Now I've been put to an ultimatum.  Answer a moderators question or be banned.

So why is answering the question so hard?

Quote
Frankly, I find it shocking and incredibly hypocritical that members of this forum could be so selective in their outrage as to justify such an unprincipled action.  Not answering a question is not a violation of the terms of service.  First, because it was not the thrust of the conversation, a conversation that I started.  And second because of the way that I said it.

Again, what's so hard about answering the question? You want us to waste our time answering your questions, but you won't answer ours.

Quote
Apparently not.  You might want to take that down.

To say that there is "an argument to be made" is not the same as saying that you believe or are necessarily convinced of that argument. The implication of that statement is to recognize that there is value in a discussion and learning all point of view on a particular topic.  Indeed, that's what I'm doing here.  Having a discussion with people I disagree with.

No your not, your trying to ram your ideology down others throat, otherwise you'd answer the questions presented you.

Quote
To take the time to learn, even be influenced by those that I disagree with, even if I don't list the changes that my conversations with self-proclaimed conservatives have had on me, I assure you that in speaking to people in several Conservative forums I have come to understand and be considerate of many things that I might not have otherwise have considered without having had this experience.   Lastly, I said that I would be happy to debate the topic of income inequality in a new thread, but that derailing threads on side topics are generally considered poor forum ettiqute.

So then why haven't you created another thread and answered the question? Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Quote
For instance, I think there is an argument to be made for parents to limit their children's access to cell phones, there is an argument to be made for leaving marriage as a strictly religious institution and removing the state's role in it all together.  There is an argument to be made that the President's executive powers should be more limited.  There's an argument to be made that judicial activism has exceeded the power of the Constitution.  There is an argument to be made that the terms "rape culture" and "white privilege" are the result of a generation of sheltered children who are now adults and don't know how to resolve conflict without resorting to manipulation of those in authority.....ect....ect.

Who cares? You can waste bandwidth on excuses, yet you won't answer the question. Why?

Quote
I'm not here calling people stupid.  I don't demonize the opinions of others, even when I disagree.  I've never said that Conservative ideas are destructive.  The only thing I find destructive is the intolerance on the Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian or whatever words you wish to use to self-identify, the point is the thing that is most destructive is the intolerance of simple conversation (again, on all sides of the political debate).

Actually you are and you do. You scoffed at both solar's and taxed's credentials as a businessmen' yet refuse to present your own credentials. Isn't that proper debate manners?

You tell me I have no idea what socialism is, when I diddn't even define it.

Quote
Banning me for refusal to answer a question in this context is no different than what the false-Liberals are doing when they cleanse their colleges of speakers who they believe have ideas that they disagree with.  When Black Lives Matter interrupt conversations of those that disagree or feminists demand that their ideas be held sacred and unquestioning.  That somehow even hearing an argument will offend them. Thier claims and ideas are no longer up for debate and have become sacred. 

That is what has happened here.  My decision, my refusal to "fall in line" has been met with exile from the group.

You mean your refusal to back up your claim. Isn't that also proper debate manners?

Quote
I can't be forced to answer a question and I find it sad that there isn't a single person willing to step out of line in this group on principled grounds to call out this unprincipled behavior.  I expect this kind of behavior from radical progressives.  Conservatives in my experience are more likely to stick to the principles they set for themselves.  I guess what we're seeing is a change, where Conservatives are ok to adopt the worst of Progressive intolerance.  Intolerance they claim to despise. 

Yet you expect us to answer your questions, right?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 10:21:20 AM
What difference does it make, my credentials"?   As if credentials somehow make you right.

Apparently in your universe they do. You scoffed at taxed and solars business experience, yet you act like stuff your trying to sell was handed to you on stone tablets

You have no more idea of right than I do

That's the difference between a pseudointellectual and a true intellectual: a true intellectual always considers, "I could be wrong."

Quote
Look up Warren Mosler who supports the same ideas I do.  He worked in the banking system for 20 some odd years, was a hedge fund manager (where he developed the ideas that I share with you and used them too much success).  Today he is requested to consult with people, companies and even entire nations (Italy for instance).  He has run several businesses including is own car company.  So tell me, do his credentials matter?

This is my impressed look.

And the above all means what? Nothing. It doesn't make him right either.

Thousands of people still follow Karl Marx and his ideas and you can see what they've done to the world again and again.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:12:11 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 10:26:38 AM
Apparently in your universe they do. You scoffed at taxed and solars business experience, yet you act like stuff your trying to sell was handed to you on stone tablets

You have no more idea of right than I do

That's the difference between a pseudointellectual and a true intellectual: a true intellectual always considers, "I could be wrong."

This is my impressed look.

And the above all means what? Nothing. It doesn't make him right either.

Thousands of people still follow Karl Marx and his ideas and you can see what they've done to the world again and again.

I'm on my cell,  so I'll answer this as it's shorter.   There is a difference between microeconomics,  which business owners are undoubtedly very experienced in,  and I would yield to thier experience in many areas in this regard.   However,  being a business person does not uniquely qualify a person in macroeconomics.   The fact that no one,  to my knowledge has made that distinction supports my claim.

Household (or business) finances are not the same as government finances when the government in question is a soverign currency issuer.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:12:11 AM
I'm on my cell,  so I'll answer this as it's shorter.   There is a difference between microeconomics,  which business owners are undoubtedly very experienced in,  and I would yield to thier experience in many areas in this regard.   However,  being a business person does not uniquely qualify a person in macroeconomics.   The fact that no one,  to my knowledge has made that distinction supports my claim.

Household (or business) finances are not the same as government finances when the government in question is a soverign currency issuer.

Yadda yadda yadda bull bull

I ask you the time and you tell me how to build a clock.

You still haven't said what qualifies you to judge their qualifications.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 10:23:23 AM
So why is answering the question so hard?

Again, what's so hard about answering the question? You want us to waste our time answering your questions, but you won't answer ours.

No your not, your trying to ram your ideology down others throat, otherwise you'd answer the questions presented you.

So then why haven't you created another thread and answered the question? Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Who cares? You can waste bandwidth on excuses, yet you won't answer the question. Why?

Actually you are and you do. You scoffed at both solar's and taxed's credentials as a businessmen' yet refuse to present your own credentials. Isn't that proper debate manners?

You tell me I have no idea what socialism is, when I diddn't even define it.

You mean your refusal to back up your claim. Isn't that also proper debate manners?

Yet you expect us to answer your questions, right?

Tell you what,  let me respond this way...

Should I be banned for failing to answer the question?

That is the only issue of my response.   Everything you posted is simply an attempt to justify Solar's decision to be unprincipled in his decision.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:22:21 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
Tell you what,  let me respond this way...

Should I be banned for failing to answer the question?

That is the only issue of my response.   Everything you posted is simply an attempt to justify Solar's decision to be unprincipled in his decision.

Now your trying to change the subject.

What qualifies you to judge their qualifications?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:26:25 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:22:21 AM
Now your trying to change the subject.

What qualifies you to judge their qualifications?

So now,  in order to have an opinion,  a person has to prove his qualifications?   Facts don't matter,  all that matters is the qualifications of this that make the argument?

First,  that's a debate fallacy,  it's called "the argument from authority".

Next,  I retorted with a person of much greater qualifications,  who my options are,  on the topic of economics,  perfectly aligned with,  and you rejected them out of hand.

You are a walking contradiction.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:28:55 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
Tell you what,  let me respond this way...

Should I be banned for failing to answer the question?

That is the only issue of my response.   Everything you posted is simply an attempt to justify Solar's decision to be unprincipled in his decision.

No unprincipled is expecting everyone else to answer your questions, but refusing to answer theirs.

Unprincipled is having no qualifications yet thinking you can judge everyone elses qualifications

That's unprincipled
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:26:25 AM
So now,  in order to have an opinion,  a person has to prove his qualifications?   Facts don't matter,  all that matters is the qualifications of this that make the argument?

Your the one that judged their qualifications. Little Hypocritical don't you think.

Quote
First,  that's a debate fallacy,  it's called "the argument from authority".

So its okay for you to use debate fallacies, but no one else, right?

Quote
Next,  I retorted with a person of much greater qualifications,  who my options are,  on the topic of economics,  perfectly aligned with,  and you rejected them out of hand.

Like you rejected solar and taxed out of hand, right?

Quote
You are a walking contradiction.

Are you talking to a mirror?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:33:12 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:28:55 AM
No unprincipled is expecting everyone else to answer your questions, but refusing to answer theirs.

Unprincipled is having no qualifications yet thinking you can judge everyone elses qualifications

That's unprincipled

Is that deserving of being banned from the forum?
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
Oh,  and for the record,  I never refused to discuss,  I told Solar he should start a new thread and we could discuss.   That would allow for an answer to the question and keep from derailing the thread.   Of course this has never really been about me answering questions.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:33:12 AM
Is that deserving of being banned from the forum?
Again, you attemp to change the subject, hoping to skip over your unprincipled behavior.

You want answers to your questions, aanswer others questions. Or admit you ddon't know what your talking about in reference to income inequality
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:43:16 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
Oh,  and for the record,  I never refused to discuss,  I told Solar he should start a new thread and we could discuss.   That would allow for an answer to the question and keep from derailing the thread.   Of course this has never really been about me answering questions.

So, there's a problem with you starting a thread?

Quote
Of course this has never really been about me answering questions.

Well, you'll never know unless you aanswer the question.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:40:07 AM
Again, you attemp to change the subject, hoping to skip over your unprincipled behavior.

You want answers to your questions, aanswer others questions. Or admit you ddon't know what your talking about in reference to income inequality

I've answered all of your questions,  you have apparently failed to comprehend.   I cannot control that,  that's on you.   All the answers you seek are above.
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Ghoulardi on January 01, 2017, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:44:36 AM
I've answered all of your questions,  you have apparently failed to comprehend.   I cannot control that,  that's on you.   All the answers you seek are above.

No your the one refusing to comprehend.

Actually, I get it. You want to be vicimized by the evil conservatives.

And, God forbid, you should look at what you did to cause it. You want you questions answered, answer others. Simple.

However, I started an Income Inequality thread.

Now let'ss see if you really intend on answering questions, or if your just trolling
Title: Re: Time Equals Profit for Banks
Post by: Solar on January 01, 2017, 12:00:05 PM
Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 09:59:31 AM
Few thoughts on what is sure to be my last post here at CPF.

Now I've been put to an ultimatum.  Answer a moderators question or be banned.

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality"
On this forum, when a member asks a poster to back up a claim, they are obligated to post relating facts without using opinion pieces as source material. This pertains to all members, not just leftists that have to back up any and all claims when challenged.
It really is that simple, just ask anyone here. But it's funny, you come to a community, push your backward way of thinking and demand others discuss your leftist lunacy, furthering your delusion that it has a practical place in a free capitalist society.

QuoteFrankly, I find it shocking and incredibly hypocritical that members of this forum could be so selective in their outrage as to justify such an unprincipled action.  Not answering a question is not a violation of the terms of service.  First, because it was not the thrust of the conversation, a conversation that I started.  And second because of the way that I said it.
That's right, you made a leftist claim on a conservative forum and are still expected to back it up.
So there are two possibilities here, one being you realized just how stupid your claim was, or two, that you are unable to back it up because you came to the conclusion, that no one can make an argument supporting it.

Apparently not.  You might want to take that down.
[/quote]
We are CPF using a software by SMF and are in now affiliated, nor do we support the views and opinions of SMF, as does their opinion of us.

QuoteTo say that there is "an argument to be made" is not the same as saying that you believe or are necessarily convinced of that argument. The implication of that statement is to recognize that there is value in a discussion and learning all point of view on a particular topic.  Indeed, that's what I'm doing here.  Having a discussion with people I disagree with.  To take the time to learn, even be influenced by those that I disagree with, even if I don't list the changes that my conversations with self-proclaimed conservatives have had on me, I assure you that in speaking to people in several Conservative forums I have come to understand and be considerate of many things that I might not have otherwise have considered without having had this experience.   Lastly, I said that I would be happy to debate the topic of income inequality in a new thread, but that derailing threads on side topics are generally considered poor forum ettiqute.
Now see how easy that was? And to think, you've blabbered on for some time now defending not derailing the thread, yet you derail? :rolleyes:
You even stated you were willing to start a new thread, yet you insist on derailing your own thread in avoidance of the topic. Why is that? I'd say you're a perfect example of poor forum etiquette.

QuoteFor instance, I think there is an argument to be made for parents to limit their children's access to cell phones,
Define derail again? :rolleyes:
Quotethere is an argument to be made for leaving marriage as a strictly religious institution and removing the state's role in it all together.
Straw man comes to mind now...

QuoteThere is an argument to be made that the President's executive powers should be more limited.  There's an argument to be made that judicial activism has exceeded the power of the Constitution.  There is an argument to be made that the terms "rape culture" and "white privilege" are the result of a generation of sheltered children who are now adults and don't know how to resolve conflict without resorting to manipulation of those in authority.....ect....ect.
Yeah, OK already, we get it, you would rather bore us to death than discuss the subject...

QuoteNow I, of course, have ideas of my own about all of these, but in a nation where ideas can be changed, where our founding document can be amended, discussion and evidence should matter.  It should be of the highest cultural significance.  The problem is that there are elements on opposing sides who scoff at the simple idea of having that conversation.  Now I don't claim to know what the "founders intended",
Well, there's a Big Ass, No Shit Sherlock!

Quotebut what I do know is that they came from fairly diverse backgrounds and the nation they were trying to build was even more diverse and I'm certain that they understood the value of conversation.  The idea that it was ok to consider ideas of those they vehemently disagreed with even if they didn't accept them.
You just posted a perfect example of Conservative. Ask anyone of us about our Founding Documents and you'll get roughly the same answer across the board, but ask a liberal, and you'll get a whole host of bull shit, with one consensus, that they need to be destroyed to some extent.
QuoteI'm not here calling people stupid.  I don't demonize the opinions of others, even when I disagree.  I've never said that Conservative ideas are destructive.  The only thing I find destructive is the intolerance on the Left, Right, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian or whatever words you wish to use to self-identify, the point is the thing that is most destructive is the intolerance of simple conversation (again, on all sides of the political debate).
Let me briefly explain what you fail to understand. The values this Nation was Founded on, the ones defined in our Founding Documents, is the epitome of Conservatism, to waiver from that in any form, is to go against the moors of Conservative ideals.

QuoteBanning me for refusal to answer a question in this context is no different than what the false-Liberals are doing when they cleanse their colleges of speakers who they believe have ideas that they disagree with.  When Black Lives Matter interrupt conversations of those that disagree or feminists demand that their ideas be held sacred and unquestioning.  That somehow even hearing an argument will offend them. Thier claims and ideas are no longer up for debate and have become sacred.
That is what has happened here.  My decision, my refusal to "fall in line" has been met with exile from the group. 

Wait, are you under the illusion you should be afforded a podium from which to spew leftist bull shit is some kind of right?
Sir, you are here as my guest, nothing more, you are given the privilege to speak, you are not however given free reign to post anti-American propaganda.

QuoteI can't be forced to answer a question and I find it sad that there isn't a single person willing to step out of line in this group on principled grounds to call out this unprincipled behavior.  I expect this kind of behavior from radical progressives.  Conservatives in my experience are more likely to stick to the principles they set for themselves.  I guess what we're seeing is a change, where Conservatives are ok to adopt the worst of Progressive intolerance.  Intolerance they claim to despise. 

How ironic.

In the end, I really don't care if you remove me (for not answering a question...lol)...  The point is, you, the Conservative member of this forum, should care.

-Cheers
For the same reason, you can't force us to endure your leftist nonsense.
It's funny, not one of us on this forum could ever get away with going to a leftist forum and post our beliefs without retribution, believe me, every member is here because of liberal sites banning them, myself included, which is why I started this very forum.
So don't cry to me about being censored, because no one here has done anything of the sort, in fact, I have been demanding you expand on your leftist drivel.
So cut the crocodile tears bull shit, they just expose your false victimhood claim, a typical tactic used by liberals when called upon to defend their positions, snowflake.

So hop to it, we're all waiting with baited breath for your explanation of "There is an argument to be made for income inequality".