Varoufakis on Negative Interest rates
- This topic has 36 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Negative interest rates impact on pensions (my workplace pensions funds have been hit by the low government returns); they impact on our 'fuck you' money, and make it harder for workers to save, they would increase volatility in the housing market (and other asset markets) as people look to store value in a way that is degraded by charges, this will also impact on renters.Interest is just a price of borrowing, and a share of surplus value: if capitalists aren't making their cut through interest, then different capitalists are taking their slice of the surplus value pot.Essentially, this is just about choosing between different bnches of capitalist.
Only individuals with anti-labors mentaility will support any messure that will benefits the capitalist class
mcolome1 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So in that case it's obvious that a negative interest rates are less bad for the people then high positive interest rates. Ask a businessman with lots of money weather they want high interest rates or negative interest rates for their money. When they say they want high interest rates, then you can be sure that negative interest rates are the right choice for the people to give them.What peoples are you talking about ? The concept of peoples is totally wrong, because in every country there are two antagonist interests, the interests of the capitalist class and the interests of the working class. Are you a defender or a speaker of a group of thieves known as capital sits, or are you the defender of the working class ?I can visualize a capitalist defending his or her own interests, but I can not visualize a wage slaves, who depend on a salary, defending his own class enemies. . . .. . . What I can see in all your posts is that you are a defender, and protector of the capitalist class, and you are sublimating their system of exploitation, whoever defend the capitalists is like defending a gangs of thieves. I do not have to ask to any business man because I know what their objective are, their main objective is to produce profits at any cost. This post contradicted what you have said in others posts that this system is benefcial to the poor. What benefits can produce zero interest rate to a guy living on the streets,or a person that is unable to pay his or her rent ?
You're contradicting yourself in your judgement about me here. Why in the world would a capitalist defender of his own interests 1) bother with this site and spending time which equals money to write to people like you. There's no profit motive in this conversation for me. I think you're looking too hard for an enemy. I'm not really good at spelling and bourgiouse is a hard word for me to use so I just called them business men. the "people" I"m refering too are probably those who own negligible amounts of wealth and property, but since I use the word "people" a lot, i might have missued it some place. Anyway the question of the forum is a discussion of negative interest rates, so maybe you have somethign to write about that? I really don't see it as that hard of a question. Negative interest rates decrease the value of large amounts of money. a Billionaire makes money when he/she gets high interest rates at the bank and loses money when she/she gets negative iterest rates at the bank. Yes, a smart capitalist rich person will try to find ways to avoid losing money, and maybe succeed sometimes but usually not so much. consider this argument. . . If negative inflation rates increased wealth concentration and made the rich profit, then don't you think the rich would have found a way to get negative inflation rates all over the world a long time ago and we'd be reading some propaganda about how some rich person made a bunch of money because of negative interest rates 100 years ago and we've had negative interest rates ever since? We don't have that particular history of rich people clammoring for negative interest rates and fighting the poor to make it happen because obviously negative interest rates don't help the rich.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So in that case it's obvious that a negative interest rates are less bad for the people then high positive interest rates. Ask a businessman with lots of money weather they want high interest rates or negative interest rates for their money. When they say they want high interest rates, then you can be sure that negative interest rates are the right choice for the people to give them.What peoples are you talking about ? The concept of peoples is totally wrong, because in every country there are two antagonist interests, the interests of the capitalist class and the interests of the working class. Are you a defender or a speaker of a group of thieves known as capital sits, or are you the defender of the working class ?I can visualize a capitalist defending his or her own interests, but I can not visualize a wage slaves, who depend on a salary, defending his own class enemies. . . .. . . What I can see in all your posts is that you are a defender, and protector of the capitalist class, and you are sublimating their system of exploitation, whoever defend the capitalists is like defending a gangs of thieves. I do not have to ask to any business man because I know what their objective are, their main objective is to produce profits at any cost. This post contradicted what you have said in others posts that this system is beneficial to the poor. What benefits can produce zero interest rate to a guy living on the streets,or a person that is unable to pay his or her rent ?
You're contradicting yourself in your judgment about me here. Why in the world would a capitalist defender of his own interests 1) bother with this site and spending time which equals money to write to people like you. There's no profit motive in this conversation for me. I think you're looking too hard for an enemy. I'm not really good at spelling and bourgeois is a hard word for me to use so I just called them business men. the "people" I"m referring too are probably those who own negligible amounts of wealth and property, but since I use the word "people" a lot, i might have misused it some place. Anyway the question of the forum is a discussion of negative interest rates, so maybe you have something to write about that? I really don't see it as that hard of a question. Negative interest rates decrease the value of large amounts of money. a Billionaire makes money when he/she gets high interest rates at the bank and loses money when she/she gets negative interest rates at the bank. Yes, a smart capitalist rich person will try to find ways to avoid losing money, and maybe succeed sometimes but usually not so much. consider this argument. . . If negative inflation rates increased wealth concentration and made the rich profit, then don't you think the rich would have found a way to get negative inflation rates all over the world a long time ago and we'd be reading some propaganda about how some rich person made a bunch of money because of negative interest rates 100 years ago and we've had negative interest rates ever since? We don't have that particular history of rich people clamoring for negative interest rates and fighting the poor to make it happen because obviously negative interest rates don't help the rich.
I am not contradicting myself, I know what I am saying, I am just establishing the different between what a capitalist is, and what a proletarian ( proper term used in Rome ) is. That's all, and our society is divided in two social classes onlyWell, a left wing newspaper has a different opinion. Negative interest does benefits the capitalist class, specially those that are hiding, and piling large sum of money,( The Sicilian mafia used to do the same ) and it is in detriment of the working class. This is what they said:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/01/30/japa-j30.htmlCapitalist ( bourgeois, bourgeoisie ) is a group of individuals who own and control the means of production, a workers is not a capitalist, but there are workers who defend and support the capitalist class. Bourgeois is the proper word,( it comes from France ) a small business man is not a bourgeois, or a capitalist, classes are defined according to their relationship with the means of productionBillionaires make money from the exploitation of the working class at the point of production, banks and bankers are not productive, and this world is not controlled by bankers or the banks, it is controlled by the capitalist market.Inflation is not a product of negative interest rate, it is the product of over emission of money.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/marxian-theory-inflation. Marxian theory of inflation
mcolome1 wrote:Well, a left wing newspaper has a different opinion. Negative interest does benefits the capitalist class, specially those that are hiding, and piling large sum of money,( The Sicilian mafia used to do the same ) and it is in detriment of the working class. This is what they said:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/01/30/japa-j30.html. . . http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/marxian-theory-inflation. Marxian theory of inflationI read your links, but didn't see how you came to your conclusion or interpetation. Especially the first link, which I accept as representing socialist values didn't seem to be saying that negative inflation benefits the capitalist class. I did see some mention that the US stock market incrased when other nations chose negative inflation rates. That would seem to suggest capitalist appreciate the ability to extract greater profits from other capitalist who get forced into a system of negative inflation. I guess I should ask the opposite question of you. Do you believe that positive interest rates benefit the capitalist class? Do you believe that negative interest rates benefit the capitalist class?If you believe both benefit the capitalist class, then which do you believe benefits the capitalist class the least?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10A small twist on the unviersal basic income idea:
Quote:So how should society be compensated? Taxation is the wrong answer. Corporations pay taxes in exchange for services the state provides them, not for capital injections that must yield dividends. There is thus a strong case that the commons have a right to a share of the capital stock, and associated dividends, reflecting society’s investment in corporations’ capital. And, because it is impossible to calculate the size of state and social capital crystalized in any firm, we can decide how much of its capital stock the public should own only by means of a political mechanism.A simple policy would be to enact legislation requiring that a percentage of capital stock (shares) from every initial public offering (IPO) be channeled into a Commons Capital Depository, with the associated dividends funding a universal basic dividend (UBD). This UBD should, and can be, entirely independent of welfare payments, unemployment insurance, and so forth, thus ameliorating the concern that it would replace the welfare state, which embodies the concept of reciprocity between waged workers and the unemployed.He ignores the Speenham land objection to UBI (that it subsidises low wages), but this suggestion is at least interesting from a reformist perspective, as it is deliverable. The obvious problem is, the first rightwing government that wants a bit of cash could sell those shares at the stroke of a pen.
Young Master Smeet wrote:https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/basic-income-funded-by-capital-income-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-10A small twist on the unviersal basic income idea:Quote:So how should society be compensated? Taxation is the wrong answer. Corporations pay taxes in exchange for services the state provides them, not for capital injections that must yield dividends. There is thus a strong case that the commons have a right to a share of the capital stock, and associated dividends, reflecting society’s investment in corporations’ capital. And, because it is impossible to calculate the size of state and social capital crystalized in any firm, we can decide how much of its capital stock the public should own only by means of a political mechanism.A simple policy would be to enact legislation requiring that a percentage of capital stock (shares) from every initial public offering (IPO) be channeled into a Commons Capital Depository, with the associated dividends funding a universal basic dividend (UBD). This UBD should, and can be, entirely independent of welfare payments, unemployment insurance, and so forth, thus ameliorating the concern that it would replace the welfare state, which embodies the concept of reciprocity between waged workers and the unemployed.He ignores the Speenham land objection to UBI (that it subsidises low wages), but this suggestion is at least interesting from a reformist perspective, as it is deliverable. The obvious problem is, the first rightwing government that wants a bit of cash could sell those shares at the stroke of a pen.
I agree that the problem is the first rightwing government that wants a bit of cash could sell those shares at the stroke of a pen. BUT, I believe it's possible to create a digital currency and exchange system that takes that power out of the hands of the government and holds that power in the hands of the currency exchange system. The currency exchange system can be designed using cryptographic and blockchain technology so that voting on money exchanges are approved or vetoed by the consensus of people using any voting method the creator of the currency exchange system deems best or more likely any voting method that can get a consensus majority to change the voting system. So in conclusion. This problem with the stroke of pen by a govvernment official is solvable using technology. Government power and entrenched power will obviously try to convince you this solution I propose is not going to work. Don't listen to them. Technology has put an end date on their power structure and they're trying to hold on as long as possible, by creating despondency and surrender in those who theaten their hold on power.
The problem is, the question of legal title: the shares would have to legally belong to someone (so long as property exists), and if vested in the hands of hte state, it could be sold: or if held by a trust, the state could use legislative power to enfore sale (as they did with the enclosure of the common land).I don't see how voting on use of money can work, since once you spend it, it belongs to an individual who will have legal control of it.Technology does pose a problem for the rulign class, but it's not an insurmountable one.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The problem is, the question of legal title: the shares would have to legally belong to someone (so long as property exists), and if vested in the hands of hte state, it could be sold: or if held by a trust, the state could use legislative power to enfore sale (as they did with the enclosure of the common land).I don't see how voting on use of money can work, since once you spend it, it belongs to an individual who will have legal control of it.Technology does pose a problem for the rulign class, but it's not an insurmountable one.That's how capitalist money works. That's not how my money works. With my Universal Exchange Values System Protocol, you can specify how the product of your labor is used. Money comes with laws and regulation about what it can and can't be used for. you can't use money to buy love in most parts of california, but you can in prague. These are national laws and rules about control of money. when you move money from one nation and currency to another the laws on what you can do with the money change. But, notice only governments owning money seem to have a monopoly on rules for their money. So what if you had a form of money that didn't belong to any government, but instead belonged to individuals. And what if that form of money allowed you to write you're own laws for how that money could be used after it was exchagned. It's still your labor value represented in the money and you didn't trade your labor value money to used for sex. . . Or maybe you did and that's what you want your money to be used for. Regardless, of what you want your money to be used for and what laws you want to apply to the products of your labor, capitalist money will ignore those wants and use the laws of the land. Sometimes organizations move to different locations to move their money into systems with laws they prefere. What I have devoloped is a way to include those laws as an inseperable part of the money and make those laws customizable for every exchange. So my money works better than your money for socialist goals.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-chinese-debt-global-imbalances-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-11Back to Varoufakis:
Quote:Today, China’s credit boom is underpinned by collateral almost as bad as that on which Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and the rest were relying in 2007. Moreover, because the Chinese renminbi is grossly overvalued, corporations are borrowing dollars to repay their legacy dollar-denominated debt early, putting downward pressure on the exchange rate.What Varoufakis is calling for is in effect a World Currency, administered by the IMF:
Quote:A new ICU, or NICU, would be as Keynes had envisaged it. But, in place of the abstract bancor, it would feature a common digital currency – say, Kosmos – to be issued and regulated by the IMF. The Fund would administer Kosmos on the basis of a transparent digital distributed ledger and an algorithm that would adjust total supply in a pre-agreed manner to the volume of world trade, allowing for an automatic countercyclical component that boosts global supply at times of a general slowdown.This to end the situation that in a downturn it is the poorer and debtor nations that are hit first and hardest, and also to impose some responsibility ojn creditor nations to restructure their debts to cresate equilibrium across the world economy.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Money comes with laws and regulation about what it can and can't be used for. you can't use money to buy love in most parts of california, but you can in prague.That's not money, that's contract law: if you're sprecifying how your money is used afterwards, that, like create commons is because you continue to own it, that's the only way, but restricted money is not money (which is a universal equivilant) what you're arguing for sounds like a form of barter system.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So what if you had a form of money that didn't belong to any government, but instead belonged to individuals.That's been done, it's called gold. Didn't work.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So my money works better than your money for socialist goals.No, your money works worse, because it doesn't work as money, if I did a job for you, and you told me that my payyment would include a rewquirement that I not spend the money on beer, then I'd be pretty ticked off…
Young Master Smeet wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Money comes with laws and regulation about what it can and can't be used for. you can't use money to buy love in most parts of california, but you can in prague.That's not money, that's contract law: if you're sprecifying how your money is used afterwards, that, like create commons is because you continue to own it, that's the only way, but restricted money is not money (which is a universal equivilant) what you're arguing for sounds like a form of barter system.
That sounds mostly agreeable to me. What I am proposing is not like money in your opinon if you consider contract law not like money. I would find it agreable if you think of what I'm proposing as replacing money with contract law. The point of my project is to create a new exchange system and a new form of money or contract law if you consider it that. Money, even the kind you're talking about, is just a special type of contract and has a default set of social norms and contract law that's applicable to it. Money = contract law in capitalist sense because the government law does specify what you can and can't spend your money on. So even the money you describe isn't law free, it's just that government, the market, and the social norms have a monopoly on the right to create and enforce the laws that apply to the money. You can't spend your money buying anything labeled illegal under the contract law that applies to money and their's minimum wage laws you might approve of or not and their's laws about truth in advertising which you might feel need to be stronger and their's laws about pretty much everything you do with money. so money, in that sense is a kind of simplified contract law where the laws can not be written by individuals or applied to individual exchanges. with "money" any exchange is equivalent to contract law with the contract provision that the individual can not make any additioins or changes to the national monetary laws governing use of the money. You can't specify what happens to your money under capitalism because capitalism is defined as the exclusive right by the market and the government, but denied to the individual, about how that money can be used after it leaves your hands.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So what if you had a form of money that didn't belong to any government, but instead belonged to individuals.That's been done, it's called gold. Didn't work.
yes, gold was a form of individual money, but gold doesn't come with it's own laws or regulatioins on usage just like the fiat money that replaced it. gold value is measured in weight and doesn't include the ability to add or modify any laws and regulations on it's use. There was some moderate success with fiat currences that were non-exchangable with gold or fiat currency that let small communities create their own limited exceptions to the rules and laws of exchange, such as defaltionary currencies. Food stamps are also a form of money or contract law with special exclusions that the money can only be spent on food. Coupons are another form of money or currency that have their own terms and conditions added to the money laws like "limit one per customer". Mostly, my complaint with gold is it's too easily melted down and sold as a capital resource for money, even if you managed to create a form of gold that let you specefy how it could be used and for what, then it would be an easily circumvented law. My exchange system has a default for exchanging things of capital value and when used with that default agreement terms to work like money, it has to include and abide by any laws related to money. To escape regulation of the capital market and government laws you would have to not choose the "default capitalist money" option for the terms and conditions of the exchange. Instead you would have to use the option to "write my own laws and regulations because this exchang has "no mention of property or capital value" in it and therefore property and money laws do not apply to this exchage". Or you could use some middle ground and use a default set of terms and conditions that I'm calling "capitalism plus" that does mention property value and has to follow all the government laws of capital value, but under the "capitalism plus" default exchange terms and agreements you can add laws as long as they don't conflict with capital laws directly. My exchange system could maybe be considered a rapid and conveniet way of writing a contract for every small exchange you want and applying individually written contract and contract law enforcement to any transaction of non-capital value.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:So my money works better than your money for socialist goals.No, your money works worse, because it doesn't work as money, if I did a job for you, and you told me that my payyment would include a rewquirement that I not spend the money on beer, then I'd be pretty ticked off…
In America the law prohibits spending money on beer unless you of age 21 or older. People under 21 are pretty ticked off about that already. The law also prohibits you from reselling beer to people under 21 years of age. Giving people beer who are under 21 years of age without exchange of capital value is somewhat allowed depending on other factors. Parents can give beer to their kids for example. It's also very very difficult to enforce laws against freely handing someone a beer with no exchange of money. Mostly when you see this come up in court it's not a violation of commerce and exchange laws to give someone under 21 beer and is prosecuted as a violation of safety or other laws. If you just give kids a little beer and make sure they don't drive or do anything harmfull and take responsibility for the effects of their drinking, then it's not enforceable of a law in any way that's feesible or done in practice because of our social norms. Yes, you would be pretty ticked off If I paid you in money that you could not spend on beer. Part of my exchange protocol is a specefication for how to present the limitations and exclusions of the "money" being exchanged. Exclusions and limitations must be written in a clear way in the contract governing the exchange. So you would be able to read the part where I wrote "this money can not be used to buy beer" at the top of the exchange offer and at the top of the exchange receipt if you agreed to the offer. so if you complain later after our exchange "Hey, I can't buy beer with this money you paid me". you could do that by commisioning a survey of 5 random people to spend 5 minutes reading the exchange agreement and see if you or I violated the terms of our agreement. They'll say "you should have read the exchange agreement limitations" and charge you time credits for wasting their time judgeing an exchange agreement that was written clearly. So in the beer example, my exchange agreement,(or money or contract law or whatever you want to call it) would use the "capitalism plus" defaults and I would pay you money subject to my "plus" law that you can't spend the money on beer. Capitalism could not and would not enforce the "plus" part of the contact and you could ignore that part with some penalties. The penalties are that I could write into the agreement along with the law could not be in the form of money for legal reasons, but I could put negative reviews on your exchange history for not honoring the terms and agreements of the exchange. If there was any non-capital value in your account ballance in any and all currencies, then they could be forefeitted with a judgement process. Things like hours of time could certainly be taken back after the exchange was complete as the result of a dispute. So yes, you could ignore the laws and rules and agreements of the universal values exchange system but as a worst case scenario you would lose all your money and savings in the universal values exchange system and have to start over with a new identity and a blank transaction history so people wouild be very reluctant to trust you and make agreements with you. generally for any large transactions of non-capital value, it's prudent to check the exchange history of the person you're making an agreement with to see if they've built up a reputation for honoring their agreements. If you're foolish enough to make a 1000 hour exchange agreement with someone who's only has an exchange history of 50 hours cumulative or has negative reviews on their exchange history, then that's kind of your own fault, but the universal values exchange system will do what it can to protect you even though it was foolish of you to make such an agreement. For large value exchange agreements, you can also buy with your time search and relevancy agents time who are practiced and efficient at finding the relevant transaction history. People make an average of 8 (? not sure) purchases each day so after a few years of use, finding the relevant exchange transactions to decide the trust of the other person requires some robust seach ability. Search and information processing needs don't really concern me because technology and computers are good at that sort of thiing and getting better all the time. So searching and evaluting exchanges doesn't have much in the way of automation yet, and I'm counting on people providing and scaling that function as it grows. For now, everything is manual and very slow and processing takes a lot of time and is done manually and record keeping is done with free google docs. My manual prototype of the exchange system probably has a limit of about 10,000 agreements before it becomes infeasible to run with google docs. To scale larger it has to be replaced or upgraded for growing more. If the idea becomes that successfull, then scaling and making it more efficient won't be a problem. For comparison, a word of mouth and unwritten universal values exchange system that occurs in families and small socialist island communities can only feesibly scale to abou 2500 transactions without universal shared record keeping and with all records about trust and history kept in peoples head. capitalist exchanges of pure capital value like gold don't require any record keeping and can scale to any size but with complex items like diamonds for example, an expert is used to assess the value of the product. Capital exchanges of only capital goods (excluding time or promises) which is why they've scaled and spread to all corners of the world. Capital requires only an ability to inspect the capital goods and private property laws, so where ever those two are present defines the scope and efficiency of a capital goods exchange system. When property laws are innsufficient or lacking, even capital trade and exchange will be innefficient or impossible. Capitalism also requires the ability to inspect a product for value and in remote areas where inspection ability is short, the result is the exchange of beeds and trinkets for the large swaths of land. Without a universal shared world wide web base for accessibility and sharing of exchange reviews and comments to verify trust and value agreements, my universal values exchange system wouldn't scale up very well either. For small agreements with people who don't have practice and experience with my "contract law type money", it's probably not worth the information processing an understanding time to use anything unfamilar to you. So for buying a candybar with a capitalist, you probably won't get anyone accepting tems and conditions accept the ones they are familiar with called "national laws on money". but for larger agreements of more importance people will use capitalism plus. In particular, I notice that you're particular example of beer is a violation of Muslim Sharia law. So in fact we already have an example of a form of money that is used in muslim societies for prohibiting others from using that money to buy beer. Because people are somewhat familiar with muslim sharia law, I would make that a default term of agreement for the exchange and call it the "capitalism + sharia law" default option for my agreements. If I were muslim I would probably try to have most of my agreements made using the "capitalism + Sharia law" terms and conditions. I would end up not trading much with capitalist in america since I insist on using the "capitalism + scharia law" terms and conditions for my "money". But a lot of muslims would freely accept those terms and conditions which also exclude the money's from being spent on beer. The result would be two vaguely separate economic systems running side by side in the same society. People who use the "capitalism only" default terms and conditions for exchange would not freely associate and exchange with people using the "capitalism + Sharia law" terms and conditions. the price for things in "capitism dollar currency" might be different that the price for things in "capitalism + sharia law" currency. People might choose which economy to use and contibute their economic activity to based on their religion and the currency differences will separate the currencies and markets in a fuzzy gradual way over time.I think in some muslim communities they probably all ready do this without the benefit of my exchange system protocols, so my exchange system protocols just make things more standardized and efficient plus my exchange protocols allow specifying individual terms and conditions as well as individually specified dispute resolution methods and even individually specified verification and enforcement methods. Mostly, what my Universal Values Exchange System Protocols do is allow something like a "capitalism + sharia law" exchange market to scale larger than allowed by unwritten agreements in a small community can support. Enforcement and verification of agreements do have some feasibility and cost limitations, you have to pay more of your time to commision a judgement on complex individually written agreement. you have to be practiced in writing affordable and convenient terms and agreements and usable methods for verification and enforcement. But if you're bad at writting and need practice in sharia law, you can still use it and learn as you go. If you want to write individual terms and conditioins or individual enforcement or verification terms then you might not be very practiced in that either. It's ok, and you're just learning so you can still write stupidly complex agreements for buying a candybar and someone can agree with it and then if there's a dispute either one of you can pay for a survey with your time credit to judge the dispute. so that rube goldberg candybar exchange offer with complex terms and conditions would be prohibiitvely expensive in terms of your time to dispute since you would have to pay with your time for other peoples time to judge the matter and they'd take a lot of time to read what you wrote and investigate the matter if you wrote something amaturish. There's the option for defaults again with the dispute resolution and verification terms of the agreement. So over time, different dispute resolution and verification and enforcement terms can be standardized for more efficient processing and estimation of enforcement costs and the system generally tends to optimize itself by thousands of individual preferences choices. Instead of advertising (exchange offers) you're used to for products, you'll get advertisements saying one or more of the following. . .Buy this keg of beer for $100 Capitalism + sharia currency is not an accepted echange currency for buying beer, Buy this keg of beer for $60 + agreement to my personal terms and conditions in 1000 words or less,Buy this keg of beer using commoon community time exchange currency with no conditions 5 hours( common community hours laws and regulations and limitations apply)If I've friended you on facebook, I'll sell you htis keg of beer for $80. (example of personalized terms and conditions)If you are hosting our neighborhood octoberfest which I'm going to attend, I'll sell you this keg of beer for $60 and free admission and unlimited beer for me to drink. (offer limited to one keg. additional kegs can be purchased with other exchange currencies. (example of personalized terms and conditions). Buy this keg of beer using some other currency? let me know what you propose buying in exchange for this keg of beer and include a time credit in your offer at the top in the first sentence for how ever long it takes the average person to read and understand your terms and conditions before consideration of acceptance or rejection of your offer. By making an exchange offer you are required to offer fair value time exchange to anyone you make the offer too for their time spent in consideration of the offer. (ps. this exchange offer for selling a keg of beer comes with 5 minutes of time if you read this and write your account number and claim your time. to clain your time compensation for reading my offer go to. . . http://www.google doc/dfdafdf where you can also see my exchange reviews and history and satisfaction ratings and any judgement for or against me in exchange disputes. . .).
If you've never come across a money crank before, now you have. They think up an alternative to the present money system and then go on and on and on about it. In this particular case, as YMS is pointing out, the cranky scheme is worse than the present system as it requires every single exchange to be recorded. Negative interest about sums it up.
ALB wrote:If you've never come across a money crank before, now you have. They think up an alternative to the present money system and then go on and on and on about it. In this particular case, as YMS is pointing out, the cranky scheme is worse than the present system as it requires every single exchange to be recorded. Negative interest about sums it up.
@ALB, You're money crank argument is a straw man created by John Gault to trick people into unwarranted refusal to even consider ideas that threaten Johan Gault's idea of capitalism. I think you are tool who was duped by John Gault. The government of the USA Psyops division did a similar trick with the media by promting the term "conspiracy theory" and associating it with crazy people. Before JFK a conspiracy theory was a reasonable thing to consider and people spoke freely about their conspiracy theories without being regarded as cranks. Now, thanks to John Gaults influence on the USA governemnt anyone who uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" is immediately discredited as a crank by people like you. To be fair there are a lot of crazy cranks with conspiracy theories and I don't believe most of them and feel they should be treated with some skepticism. Socialist make a lot of "conspiracy theories" about capitalism and can be considered cranks as well using the defintion of the propaganda mislead populace. My advice to you is that you don't fall for the "money crank or conspiracy thoery crank stereotype produced by the mass media and capitalist information distribution system.Your second criticizm about requiring every single exchange to be recorded, is mostly correct. It wouldn't require EVERY exchange to be recorded, but it wouldn't work or be usable if you refused to have your exchange recorded either. You could continue to make exchanges outside of the universal values exchange system with capital dollars or any other means like you already do. So it's an "opt in" type system where you do have to let your exchange agreements be recorded in order to be enforced and juged by others for resolving dispute agreements. Privacy is a concern for some that's being worked on and there's a number of advanced theories on how to anonymize individual transactions and identities with some success in ways that won't defeat accountabilty and verification and enforcement. But let me ask you another question. . .Is there something about socialisims that is against writing down and sharing what people do and exchange for others to consider? does socialism have a "no record keeping" rule in your opinon? What is socialism's view on privacy and secrecy? I was under the impression socialism and this board promoted a radically open and accessible to all for free type policy for handling information. I'm perplexed at your objection to recording exchange receipts and offers because it seems like an anti-socialist argument. negative interest doesn't apply in this case directly, but in order to stay on topic, let me directly address the implications of this on negative inflation. if you want negative inflation, you simply write into the terms and agreement section "the value of this exchange will decrease 10% every month from the receipt day and the difference will be returned to me." If you want 5% inflation, then you write into the exchange agreement, "the value I am offering as part of this exchange agreement will increase at a rate of 5% until the limit of my individual credit in the universal values exchange system". My Universal Values Exchange system doesn't support negative amounts of value or money, so if you run out of money due to some stupid promise of inflation in your currency, then all you can do is close your account and start fresh with a new identity and no transaction history. Agreement enforcement is likewise limited to the total cumulative value of your tangible and non-tangible assets held in the universal value exchange system. the effectiveness of your personal decision to make your exchange agreements inflationary or deflationary will be limited to how many people accept your agreements and the scope and distribution of your personal economic activity. Effectively, you get your own personal economy that extends as far as any exchange agreements you personally make. How that affects the national dollar economy is pretty unknown, but since any economic activity conducted using non-capital value exchanges in Universal Values Exchange system would be a decrease in time and value exchange available to the national dollar exchange economy, the result using the universal values exchange system would be a shrinkage of the participation in the capital dollar economy. Since the number of dollars in the capital dollar exchange markets is independent of participation rates, it would result in the same amount of dollars being used trying to buy few and fewer resources available for sale in national capital based dollars. That would seem to be a recipe for inflation of the national dollar supply relative to the goods available to sale. Prices in national dollars would rise proportionally to the value of resources no longer for sale in that economy. Eventually if everybody used this system for all exchanges (unlikely in practice but useful to consider for conceptual analysis), then there wouldn’t be anyone willing to exchange your national currency and the national money would be worthless with an infinitely high inflation rate. .I'll just quickly add: a previous instance of this was factory tokens: ekmployers would pay with coin that could only be redeemed in their own shop. Workers movements fought tooth and nail against that trick, lets not recreate it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.