Congressional hearings on bank fraud at the highest levels are finding that it's a way of life and standard operating procedure for big money.
So they deserve to pay less taxes, right? We should blame the poor folks who took out those big loans for the real estate bubble, right? We should continue to let big corporations spend millions each on political ads, right? These are the people we want controlling our economy, right? But all the other banks are honest and pure as the driven snow, right? All the other big corporations are innocent of any attempt to defraud customers, right?
Yes, I'm asking you. Seriously. Is this how you want to live your life as a sucker being stripped of your assets by fraud?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 46
With the way our government protects them, do I have a choice, Larry?
Some would say he did. I would not.
Let me get this straight. Banks are not involved in quantitative easing? Really? So where does the Fed get its money and to whom does the Fed give that money?
Finally, how do you (Ken) measure the degree of fraud? Are there degrees of fraud like degrees of murder? If so that's news to me.
Does the fact that person B commits fraud make it all right for other people to commit fraud? Especially if is "less fraudulent"?
I have noticed no depletion of the value of my money. I note that treasuries for five year bonds have an interest rate of under one percent. I see no inflation of prices. I see no indication that "those in the know" expect any inflation for the next decade (see the interest rate of ten year treasuries). Perhaps you should investigate the expertise of your authorities. :-)
Larry,
The Fed bail-out provided the major US banks practically interest-free paper dollars they could speculate with risk-free while still keeping bad assets on their books . The Fed found about 85% percent of the assets of US banks were placed in foreign banks, chiefly in London. The banks are betting 30 times the dollars they have on their books. The banks also make their money charging for moving money . It's like earning high interest on their money , maybe 30% cumulatively. The Fed wanted banks to loan to US business, but they don't. They buy stocks and have boosted the stock market but not benefited the economy. The Fed knows inflation could take off quickly and the dollar lose value and they could not prevent it. A risky game now for the Fed.
2) The Fed has a tiger by the tail and can't let go (as predicted by Ludwig Mises many years ago).
3)
http://netrightdaily.com/2013/03/no-fed-exit-anytime-soon-1/?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=No+Fed+exit+anytime+soon&utm_content=Get+full+story+here.
Your analysis matches mine. The Fed exists to make the big bankers richer.
To whom are you responding? Both Clark and I seem to have considerable issues with the Fed.
I am not clear how poor management of such an event should affect the tax status of a single bank or that of all banks?
I am not clear on how that bank head's remark relates to people taking out loans that were beyond their means and defaulting on those loans? As I recall when a person takes out a mortgage there are several pages the government requires the borrower to review and sign before the bank can finalize a loan, so I am not clear that if the bank is willing to risk their money and the borrower has reviewed and agreed to the terms for the loan they requested how that makes all banks criminal.
I am not clear what you want, all the banks closed and the government becoming the sole place to go for home loans, do you want all home mortgages stop and no more issued, all the current bank officers and employees put in jail, all the big companies in the US broken up so they are all small companies?
For example there's the following:
"We also noted that Jamie did know that the London Whale scheme had cost his bank billions, even as he told investors on a phone call that it was just a “tempest in a teapot.”"
I consider that to be fraud in lying to those who invest in the bank. Losing billions for even a large bank is not a "tempest in a teapot" it's something that will significantly affect stock prices. Do you think it's a good business practice?
Perhaps you missed this listing of crimes:
"The list of possible offenses includes “Bank Secrecy Act violations; Money laundering for drug cartels; Violations of sanction orders against Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor; Failure to segregate customer funds (Paul Volcker to the emergency room, stat!); Fraudulent sale of unregistered securities; Auto-finance ripoffs; Illegal increases of overdraft penalties …”"
You are not clear on what I want? I want the people of the U.S. to demand that we change the nature of our money so that such crimes become impossible. (I thought you knew that.)
When a big bank full of really smart people who make money for a living "loses" through its normal operations this amount of wealth it means by definition somebody stole it. Period. It doesn't matter who signed what mortgages. The point is you as a lender have responsibility not to recklessly lend to begin with. When you systematically breach that because you just want to game a system, you're a thief. It's institutional robbery and wealth redistribution with the facilitation of tax payers' ultimate money.
If what you say is true then why do you believe that JAmie Diamond is not being prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Does this Administration have the will, are they so intimidate by the size of JPM that they are unwilling to take him to court? It would seem if all you say is correct and it violates those laws and this happened early last year that they would at least have a well publicized investigation going on. Or do believe he is getting the same treatment as former Democratic US Senator Corzine who company under his direction took money directly from clients' accounts and paid off the companies liabilities in speculative actions?
Are you saying it is or should be illegal for banks to lend money to people they feel are at risk of not repaying that money? Are you saying that ad are noults are responsible for the debts they incure or is it only mortgages that they should not be respnsible for?
Since you feel that the banks should be held accountable for 'gaming the system', do feel that individuals that do similar 'gaming of the system' should be held equally accountable?
I have been saying for years that big money interests control the Congress and the Administration and strongly influence the courts. Therefore, YES, this Administration does not have the will, they are intimidated, they are unwilling to take him to court. It DOES VIOLATE THE LAW.
IS it the money or is it the people who are weak and intimidated by the money, such as the banks who were intimidate by Congressman like FRank and Dobb who controlled the banking commitees, the Fannie and Freddie that control the lending insurance, orgainzation like Acorn that used the courts to drain money from those companies?
You seem to see one culpable force, money. You seem to ignore that there are more than the banks that are involved.
Are you sure it there is no other motivation for the Adminstration than intimidation of money? What if a high rnaking member of the Administration had historic ties to Acorn and simply didn't want their methods and contribution to the bubble issue brought into the discussion.
As I recall Jamie Diamond did not deny the losses nor did he deny how they had happen, at best his were simply down playing the impact of the billions of losses to a trillion dollar organization.
I am curious, have you ever know anyone who took our a home loan that was not beyond their means, that used that loan to purchase a house they tirned into a home, that fulfilled all their oblgations of a mortgage, that had no problems with the lending institution? If so, have you ever wondered why or how they were able to do that? Especially in light of the criminality of the banks.
Let's say you push someone into the swimming pool. Note what they do while in the water of the deep end. They exhibit certain behaviors. They may grab for the edge of the pool. (Grabbing, that's human nature, right?) They probably hold their breath while their face is under water. (Holding one's breath, that's human nature, right?) Moving their feet back and forth in a scissor kick is another possibility. (Doing a scissor kick is human nature, right?) They probably will push down on the water with their arms. (Pushing down with the arms is human nature, right?)
So all these things they do are human nature. But would you also say that they are doing these things because they are in deep water? Would you attribute their behavior to being in a watery context? Would you say that these behaviors would be unlikely if they were not in the water? I think you would.
So I contend that it's human nature to commit these crimes in the context of a physical object money economy. I say that robbery, fraud, swindles, scams, theft, and political corruption are all human nature in the context of a physical object money.
I see one overwhelming feature of our economic system (and all the other nations in the world throughout history) which provides a context in which these things occur.
There were more than the banks involved. There were insurance companies, real estate companies, ratings agencies, the stock market, stock brokers, government officials, (Fannie, Freddy, and others), and shills in the media. But this particular article happens to focus on the biggest banks and JP Morgan in particular. Do you think that JP Morgan should be allowed off the hook because there were others involved?
I say that money is the overwhelming greatest motivation in a variety of ways (note how lobbyists use money).
(By the way. ACORN was not a bank and had nothing to do with the real estate bubble. Just thought you'd like to know.)
As a person who has borrowed to buy houses and paid off those loans I do know someone who as done that. I also know exactly what I did to pay off those loans. I also know I hired a lawyer to "vet" the contract I signed in each case. I borrowed from small local banks who had to protect their local reputation.
Now do you contend that the banks are innocent or that their crimes should be ignored? Is it only the poor who should go to jail?
"When a big bank full of really smart people who make money for a living "loses" through its normal operations this amount of wealth it means by definition somebody stole it." Are you saying that all mistakes or errors in judgement that fail to break even or earn a profit are violations of 'strict liability'? Or are you saying that all fails are the responsibilities, in this case, of the loaning orgainzation immaterial of the actions of any other party to the agreement or to external factors and actions that were not know by any party at the time of the agreement or actions of the government to force or pressure the agreement to be completed even if base on past practices of one party they would avoid that agreement?
"The point is you as a lender have responsibility not to recklessly lend to begin with." That would suggest that compliance with the direction of governement representatives could be construde as 'reckless' if when the loaning orgainzations were threaten with legal action or reduction in government support (refusal by Fannie or Freddie to back any loans) when the lending organization does not have a minimum percentage of their loan portfolio to those who were previously being denied loans based on the expected ability to repay those loans.
When you speak of 'this amount of wealth' are you talking about the fact that the lender has more money then the borrower or are you suggesting that there is a specific threshold of gross assests a lender has that changes how they provide loans?
What if the individual aks the pool owner if they could get into the pool and the upon invitation by the owner they jumped into the pool knowing full well how deep, how wide, how long the pool was, would that change the responsibilities/consequences for entering the pool?
As best I can tell in the case of the money 'pool' the borrower has to first ask to enter the 'pool', then they have to be formally informed about the 'pool' and its pertinent factors, then they must choose to step in or not.
"ACORN was not a bank and had nothing to do with the real estate bubble." Are you saying that no representatives threaten lender with legal actions for not having made a certain amount of loans to those who were previously considered poor loan risks? As best I can recall if you when back several years you will not only find that such threats were made in conjunction with protests at lending institution meant to disrupt the business flow of those lenders. The mortgage bubble did not occur over night, it took decades to build and in those decades ACORN was an active particpant in changing the lending practices, moving them from financial respsonibility to social responsibility.
"I say that robbery, fraud, swindles, scams, theft, and political corruption are all human nature in the context of a physical object money." There is no doubt that happens, former Senator/Governor/advisor to our current President Corzine is a clear example of that. However, I would say that money is not the sole reason for how people decide to act, ego, personal gratification, achieving or retaining 'power', celebrity status, all these are temptation for many people. Money is just the easiest to track/to talk about since the others are all within the heart/mind of the tempted individual.
"Now do you contend that the banks are innocent or that their crimes should be ignored? Is it only the poor who should go to jail?"
I don't believe banks are guilty or innocent, I believe people in those banks can be both innocent or guilty. I do not believe anyone should be jailed for who they are, they should only be jailed based on what they do.
I have met people in large organization that have high morals and practice them in doing their work (and being well compensated for that work). Just as I have known people many would consider 'poor' (financially) that have similarly high moral standards and apply them everyday in whatever they do. It is apparent that they are those at both ends of the financial spectrum who done have high moral standards and we find many of the in jail for specific actions they have taken.
I believe it is the individual actions that should be judge and those who take those actions should be held accountable.
The pool example has nothing to do with liability. It has to do with human nature as an explanation for specific behaviors and how we can reduce or eliminate those behaviors. Please read that section of my comment again as it supports my contention that the solution to these economic problems is to change the context in which people act by changing the nature of the money we use.
---------
ACORN was not a law enforcement agency. It had none of the powers you appear to attribute to it. It could make no such threats.
-----------
Money does not have to be the sole reason for behavior to warrant being changed. Also many problems are impossible except in the context of the nature of our money. Money debt, for example, is only possible with a physical object money. Improving our money will not bring utopia but it will provide a huge improvement. (Sort of like comparing modern medicine with the medicine of 500 years ago.)
I am not able to understand the pool analogy, wasn't it to help understand the loans. I had thought that you were using the pool to represent the loans and the actions of those once in the pool (having a loan) could represent how they might act/respond once they had to confront the risks associate with the water/loan. If that was not the case please help me understand. If that were the case then I am confused how they were pushed into the pool rather than invited in.
I understand ACORN was not formally a government agency, but it would seem they had the ability (they have at least in many situations) used lawyers to force changes in actions taken by other organizations or individuals. Since not law suit is without cost (direct dollars, reputation, distruption of normal operations, etc.) to the one being sued ACORN would not have to be a direct part of the government to affect the operations of a lender. This is espcially true if they had the leverage of a government agency bring pressure on a lender to take the action ACORN want to see happen.
I must admit I do not believe in 'utopia' here, I believe people are most satified when they have to overcome challenges and are able to achieve something from their own efforts.
Without taking the physical control of money away from those who earn it, effectively making them slaves to whatever and whomever controls how money is distributed based on some non free market scheme for valuing how is spent, I can't see why to change the current money system.
As best I can tell money is only a tool to enhance the barter system. 500 years ago a baker trade bread for milk and eggs, barter is limited to what provides simpler and more immediate benefits. If a baker wanted to have a carpenter build a house for them he would have to enter into a loan type agreement where the baker would provide bread to the carpenter for many years past the completion of the house and the carpenter would have a difficult time using that bread for any other bartering. Once the carpenter had built one baker's house he would have no reason to ever build another baker's house in a barter system. HOwever, money makes it easier for the carpenter to use the value of his labors to buy other thing of value and not have to be limited to strick bartering. Whether today or
500 years ago money is simply a tool of the workers.
The people who have authority and set policy in the banks are responsible for massive fraud done under their orders. This is true of all the major banks and almost all of the major corporations. These powerful people harm many others.
The poor harm only a few people since they lack the power. Money is responsible for most of the harm in both cases either as a motivation or as a means.
Changing the nature of our money would make it possible to hold people accountable for their actions. It's impossible to do so with our current kind of money.
My pool analogy was in response to your comment at 9:32 on March 17:
"IS it the money or is it the people who are weak and intimidated by the money..."
I was trying to demonstrate that we can explain many human behaviors by describing the context of the behavior and that therefore it makes sense to say that money causes these problems of immoral behavior.
---------
My economic system (my new kind of money) is free market with no need for enforcement and has no government (except "foreign relations" and the military) for dealing with nations with physical object money. There is private property (the real thing) and all the freedoms of the Bill of Rights plus. Slavery is impossible in my system. Not even the "company store" type.
Without money our industrial economy cannot operate. Barter along simply can't do the job.
"These powerful people harm many others. The poor harm only a few people since they lack the power." Are you saying the crime only matters based on the scale of who is impacted? So if thousands of individuals fraudulently take out loans from a bank cause the make to lose sufficient amounts of money (in billions) to curtail their lending that there is no crime since each individual did not default on loans in the billions only in the thousands? And yet your unwillingness to consider that a crime, wuoldn't then encourage others to do the same things because you have establish the size of the fraud is what matters not the fraud itself.
I don't know how many of the 'big' ( I am still no sure what 'big' since every place that I have borrowed money from even my local creidt union has so much money they would not feel a default on any loan I have ever had or currently have) financial institutions you have worked with, but in my limited experience they have always abided by the stated requirement for loans, deposits, savings, checking so I can't claim any are run by criminals and surely not that all 'big' companies even beyond the financial ones are fraudulent.
Your starting presumption was that people are forced into the 'pool', and yet is that the only valid starting point? What if they freely choose to dive into the 'pool' with a fair knowledge what that entails? Or do you believe that people that don;t have any experience in a 'pool' should not be allowed in the 'pool' until that have the full experience in a 'pool'?
With regard to your system of 'money' do you allow people to over value things or is that value established by a third party, do you allow people to accumulate 'money' away from the eyes of a third party if they fear that third party has the capacity to confiscate the money without due process?
As for money causing people being corrupted is like saying the murder was caused by the knife and absolving the person who picked up the knife having any respsonsiblility.
As for such things as slavery, I am not clear on how your system or any system could prevent one person be kidnapped and trade for consideration outside of money, influence, special personal services, anything that could be kept from the prying eyes of a third party? If you system only controls money it cannot claim to be infallible in preventing crimes such as slavery.
With regard to the 'company store' indebtedness, there is the simple solution of bankruptcy which you can go to a local lawyer, we even have them posting the cost of a bankruptcy on their building wall on a high traffic street corner. Or would your system prevent people from getting into the position of having such a level of indebtedness that they would banafit from a bankruptcy? If your system prevents people from making choices that could have such a negative impact on their finances then I do ss how it would be allowing the freedoms describe in the Bill of Rights, don't those rights allow us to make mistakes, error in judgement, isn't spending moneys were earn as we choose a protected freedom?
You wrote / asked:
"Are you saying the crime only matters based on the scale of who is impacted?"
That is not what my words said, was it. My words said that the powerful can do more harm than we poor and weak. That's all they said. I think my statement is still true.
If thousands of individuals fraudulently take out loans from a bank then the bankers are totally incompetent or engaged in fraud. Now which seems more likely to you? Personally I would bet on the fraud. My local bank (Credit Union, actually) had no problems at all with bad loans. Guess why.
----------
The word "big" is a relationship term. In this context (bank fraud) the term is relating banks. So we consider the top 10 or 20 banks by size of assets to be "big" banks. Clear?
--------
The pool analogy applied to explaining human behavior in general. It is not specific to bank fraud. Those who intentionally dive into a pool of water also exhibit behavior specific to a context of being in deep water. We explain their bodily motions and breathing patters by the presence of that water. The water "causes" them to act that way. In the same sense, the nature of our money "causes" people to act in ways that result in fraud, theft, poverty, crime, unemployment, political corruption, ...
I believe we should allow people (competent adults) to do stupid things if they so choose so long as we also have them suffer the consequences. (That is we hold them responsible for the consequences of their actions.) This "forcing" business is an aspect of the nature of our money. Government works by use of force and the threat of force. That's a bad thing. But given the nature of our money that's the only way government can act.
---------
With my system of money you (and everyone else) can value things however you like. It's not anyone's concern but yours. You can and may value things to suit yourself. It's none of my business.
No one can take any of your money against your will in my system. It's physically impossible. You are the only human being in the world that can spend your money (have the total of the money in your account reduced). When you spend your money it ceases to exist. When you earn money, it comes into existence in your account. (You will need to read the book to understand how it works so don't bother telling me about my own system until you have read it.)
--------
Money provides the motivation and the means for most property crimes and may crimes of violence.
-------
In my system no one works for anyone else. One might be able to use force and the threat of force to get someone to perform some action but anyone who put a stop to such behavior would earn money by doing so. Also, there is no way to gain money by forcing some person to perform some action so there is no motive to enslave anyone else.
In my system there is no money debt at all, ever, for any reason.
"powerful can do more harm than we poor and weak" are you so sure if 47% of the population is considered 'poor' (don't have sufficient financial capacity to pay for what the government deems a necessity) making them eligible for government subsities and in significant numbers of those are misusing those subsities ( as an example purchasing alcohol and tobacco with Food Stamps) to cost the government/taxpayers billions every years are creating significant harm. Simply having or not having the capacity individually to create significant harm does not force nor prevent one from being part of activites that create significant harm. Is significant harm a threshold that must be crossed before you feel it should recieved government or society's attention? I subscribe to the 'broken window' syndrome, once people see a broken window that does not recieve attention and is not repaired then the tollerance of such harm becomes accepted and starts a trent to further decay.
The you are say all of the executive are corrupt in those 10 or 20 banks, that is hard to imagine that 100% of those in a population of thousands of 'smart' people all are corrupt and all are protected from prosecution for that corruption by the government solely because they are employed by a 'big' bank.
As for your 'pool' analogy, it would seem that those who were pushed would be more likely to react in the manner you describe while those who choose to step in will quite likely respond differently, not all but many. If that is a possible scenario then the anology might have limited application.
If you money system does control how things are valued then I would is it simply a system that tracks every penny that chnages hands. If that is the case it would seem to be a very effective tool to facilitate what the Cypriots are doing to bank accounts (confiscate people's money currently in the Cypress banks). But that can't be the case because you say person's money can't be taken against their will. That would mean that your system is somehow above the actions of the government, I wonder how that could be assured.
I agree money can be a tool for criminals, but I would also offer money can be a tool for legal activities both of a high value to society and to the petty values of individuals.
If no one works for anyone, aside from doing those tasks such as home gardening how would people provide things for themselves that they don;t have the skills or capacity to provide. When my wife weaves a rug she is doing for someone else, she in effect is working for that person espcially when the person specifies size, color, texture, etc.
If there is no money debt that would suggest that people could not purchase things untill they have sufficiently save enough to buy our right what they want. Many if not most people would have to save for 20 or 30 years before they would be able to purchase a house to live in. That would surley alter how our economy works and would create new barriers to putting people to work.
You ask:
""powerful can do more harm than we poor and weak" are you so sure...
Well, let's examine the situation. What proportion of the nation's wealth does the bottom 47% possess and what proportion does the top one percent possess.
Who runs the major corporations and financial institution of the U.S. economy?
Who dominates Congress and pays for those thousands of lobbyists?
Who receives the new "money" the Fed creates?
Answered all those questions? Well then it should be blatantly obvious to anyone, certainly to a person of your intelligence (yes, it's obvious from your writing that you have a lot "on the ball") that the wealthy (big money interests) have all the power in our economy and that their actions create the economic situations in which we find ourselves.
----------
You are putting words in my mouth when you write:
"The you are say all of the executive are corrupt in those 10 or 20 banks,..."
I did not write that. The top executives are all aware that their banks are breaking the law but that does not mean that all the top executives are corrupt. Of course, I would not be surprised if they all were but I cannot know that for certain. As to the rank and file of the bank employees most of them are as honest as the average person. Some are quite honest. Some would steal anything "not nailed down."
------------
Let me write it again. My system DOES NOT SET VALUES ON PROPERTY. Did you read and understand it that time?
Yes, my system does track every penny. But no pennies "change hands." You must have missed those sentences I wrote above: "When you spend your money it ceases to exist. When you earn money, it comes into existence in your account." Clearly you did not grasp that such a money does not "change hands."
It's going to be very hard to explain my system's features to you if you ignore most of what I write about it.
With regards government, in my system there are no taxes and no government spending at all. Government has nothing at all to do with money. As you might imagine, a government that has nothing to do with money does almost nothing. In my system the government does not mess with the economy. It doesn't regulate. It doesn't legislate. It doesn't tell anyone what to do. It runs the military and foreign relations with governments and that's about it.
----------
Money as we know it is amoral and can be used for any purpose whether good or evil. That's part of its nature.
-------
In my system if you do something that benefits others the money in your account increases. So if you give someone good food to eat, you earn money. If you take care of a child you earn money. If you give someone a place to live you earn money. If you help a person get well you earn money. If you provide clothing to someone who needs it you earn money. In each case, the person who benefits by your actions DOES NOT GIVE YOU MONEY. So you don't have to care whether they have any money or not. Your wife making a rug would not earn money. Your wife providing a rug she made to someone else who benefits from having the rug, that would earn money so long as other people benefited from the use of the rug. So she would not have to find someone to trade with to gain money from providing the rug. She would only have to find someone who could benefit. Naturally, the greater the benefit, the greater the amount of money she would gain.
Because there is no money debt, people cannot buy things in my system until they have the total purchase price. But, of course, they don't need to buy anything at all since others are paid for providing for their actual needs. So saving money for a big purchase is easy. If all the money you earn can be saved, how long would it take to save enough to buy a house?
It goes without saying that adopting my system would be a huge change in how our economy works (or fails to work). That's the whole point. Why change the money if it would not change how the economy works.
In my system, you work for yourself, not for a boss. You cooperate with others to increase the net benefits you can produce which increases the money you gain. You have no bills to pay. You pay no taxes. You have no debt. You can work if you want to have a higher standard of living. It doesn't cost anyone else any money at all for you to earn money. You don't need insurance. The economy produces about 25% more goods and services the first year after my system is adopted and increases production at a rate of about 10% each year thereafter. You cannot be sued. There is no alimony and no need for child support. In other words, you will be far more free than you are now and have far fewer problems and what problems you have a "higher class" problems.
No body in my system is "put to work." If you want to live better you work. If you are willing to get along with the minimum you can spend all your time lying down though you might have to walk a ways to get food to eat.
Bruce is in this part of the conversation.
I am still trying to understand if you simply have a bias toward the one 'one percenters' to the point of ignoring others that are committing frauds costing our government.us billioins every year.
"Who receives the new "money" the Fed creates?" As best I can tell Fed is buying up government debt so I suspect that 'new money' is paying for government programs. Since the overwhelming majority of those programs are going to those who are outside the top few percent of taxpayers, I would think the 'new money' is going to the 47% or a bit higher.
As for power, I would offer that the reason their is so much of the federal dollars going to the less that top few percent of taxpayers, they have the power of the ballot box. What I see on the news almost every night is how Obama got overwhelming support form the various groups that are outside the top few percent and that is why he was elected. That would suggest that the voters, and more specifically those recieving the benefits of the government programs the Fed is subsidizing have the power (at least every four years).
"Money as we know it is amoral and can be used for any purpose whether good or evil. That's part of its nature" Are you saying that your money system will prevent the evil part of what money supports, so that sounds like you either have a way to change nature or at least prevent part of it.
"In each case, the person who benefits by your actions DOES NOT GIVE YOU MONEY" then your system takes control of the money away from the people who are recieving services. If the person has to go through your system to acknowledge services recieved then your system decides what to pay for that service.
"so long as other people benefited from the use of the rug." who/how is it decide that the benefit is provide? Are you saying that simply taking pocession of the rug does not consitute benefit recieved? Does your system have to decide on what constitues benefit for each person, stahying with the rug? What if the person puts it on the floor over other carpet, what if the person hangs it on a wall, what if a person simply puts it away for future use or value appreciation? when and how is the benefit estblished?
"you work for yourself, not for a boss" that suggests you see no value in the service provide by a 'boss'. In many situations a 'boss' helps prioritize actvities (the work of others), scheduling, training, etc. This is espcially true for the manufacture of high tech items. You seem to be eliminating the 'boss' role and all that entails, which is most likely to to if not prevent much of the current manufacturing or at lease create barriers for its implementation more difficult.
My apologies that I typed "Bruce" when I should have typed "Duane." I must be getting old. :-(
No apology necessary, a simple slip.
I explain the economic problems by reference to the nature of our money. Big money interests have the power and the authority (in most cases) to bring into being the various economic disasters we experience. In that sense, those particular human beings are "to blame" but if those individuals were somehow removed, the individuals who replaced them would do about the same things because they would be in the same context. (Look at organized crime. The heads of the gangs may be put in jail but the same kinds of organized crime continue. Arrest a pimp and he is replaced in short order.) So it seems to me pointless to blame the people who constitute the top one percent when it's the context, the circumstances in which they find themselves that accounts for their behavior. I have no impulse to punish or make infamous those who create the economic problems. That fixes no problems and prevents none. I advocate changing the nature of our money so that these circumstances no longer exist for anyone. We could keep the same people being rich and powerful and things would be much better if we have changed their context so that they would be unable to do harm on any significant scale.
-----------
What proportion of the money allocated by government from the Fed's creation ("quantitative easing" I think it's called) goes to the top one percent and what proportion goes to the "47%"? Social security and medicare are paid for by those who earn wages and there is a ceiling on how much persons pay. So that's like a retirement fund and health insurance. We we should exclude that since that's being paid for by the 47%. Also, those getting unemployment checks have paid in taxes over the years to cover such expenditures by government so it's like they are just getting back what they had put in.
On the other hand, as this post above points out, the top one percent have been getting subsidies, tax breaks, and sweetheart government contracts thanks to their lobbyists. So I contend that the people who control Congress and the Administration are reaping most of the benefits that government hands out. As to the Fed's handouts, I believe they go directly to the banks and sit in their vaults gathering dust.
The power of the ballot box is very over rated. The lobbyists have far more power, for example. You will note that though the President got far more votes than his opponent, Congress pretty much ignores him.
------
I am saying that my money system is moral, that in my system money can only be acquired by doing moral actions (moral in their consequences). In my economic system evil is prevented in almost all cases and remedied quickly where possible in much of the remaining cases. I know this is impossible for you to believe since you have no concept of any kind of money other than Physical Object Money. You are only human, after all.
--------
You wrote:
"... your system takes control of the money away from the people who are receiving services."
Completely wrong. You are still trapped in your view of money as being only physical object money. In my system you are the only person who can spend your money and you can spend it for whatever you like. You are NEVER FORCED TO BUY ANYTHING AT ALL. With POM you are forced to pay taxes, buy food and other necessities, buy licenses, permits and so forth. You are forced to support with your money any children you may have. You need money almost every day to get along. In my system you never need money though it's really nice to have plenty. So you are not forced in my system. No one has to do anything. It's freedom beyond what you can imagine unless you understand the system.
-----------
You ask:
"who/how is it decide that the benefit is provide?"
Duane, to understand my system you will have to read or listen to the novel. If I could explain the system so that you could understand it in a comment thread I would never have taken 18 months to write a novel. Please, for this thread, just assume that what I say about my system is true.
Simply taking possession of the rug does not constitute ALL of the benefit received. It is only a small part of the benefit. The rug provides insulation.
The rug provides beauty. The rug protects the floor. The rug makes it possible to change the appearance of the floor easily. So the rug provides a host of benefits of which possession is only one benefit and that to only one person. (In my system there's no joint ownership of anything.) Also, those benefits vary over time and extend through some amount of time. A rug used for 20 years would have provided more benefit than an identical rug used for only a couple of days. An unused rug would, of course, provide only the benefit of possession and that only if the rug were bought thus reducing the money earned by the producers of that rug. Thus the producers of rugs would have a money motive to place the rug with people who would actually use the rug.
-------------
I wrote: "you work for yourself, not for a boss" to which you responded:
"that suggests you see no value in the service provide by a 'boss'."
Not at all. That's your inference, not my suggestion. On a football team, the quarterback calls the plays. But that doesn't mean that the center is working for the quarterback. The center is working WITH the QB to score points for the team. The QB's job is to decide which play to run next. The center has a different job. But neither is the boss of the other. They merely have different roles. The same relationship holds for organizations in my system. There is no way for one worker to punish other workers using money. There is a great need to coordinate ones efforts to produce with others (division of labor has huge benefits for production) and those persons who help to provide that coordination make major contributions to the effectiveness of the group / organization as a whole in generating net benefits to others. The role is actually expanded for the coordinators because these "bosses" do not have to coerce, threaten, punish or whatever those whose actions they coordinate. Those whom they coordinate value the contributions of the "boss". The "boss'" power is thus enhanced since no one is working against the "boss." The "subordinates" are not resentful since if the boss benefits by what they do, they will benefit as well. No one in the organization can gain money unless all the others do as well.
So I am eliminating the coercion, the force, the threatening, the conflict of interest from the organization but not the cooperation, coordination, and teamwork of the organization.
It has been a couple of years ago, but you did share you system with me and I reviewed it. Again it was a few years ago and what I recall is limited, but it seemed you were relying on a control mechanism that monitored and place contraints (controls) how those moneys are distributed. That left me with the impression that individuals have to give up some freedom of choice when they enter your system. I don't know if that is a moral issue or simply a personal issue that I resist.
Thanks for the conversation.
Then you had better read the book again because "control mechanism" is nothing like my system. My system has a "rewards mechanism" that imposes no controls at all of any kind.
Please be specific about what choices (or any one choice) that any individual must give up.
I can specify a host of controls in our current system complete with coercive laws and a huge, expensive enforcement enforcement organization. There are also many totalitarian governments and literal slavery with our current money system around the world. You are going to have to do some explaining to show that my system is even half as bad as what we have now.
I enjoy conversation. It was my pleasure.
"TOP BANKS PROFITS: DID THEY EARN THEM?"
Assuming that banks reported profit for last year, we should wait for about five more years to see if they will be called on the carpet for fraud or not for what they call profit today...
If they will be found in violation, for fraud, I doubt that what they declare as a profit today, will really be considered profit then...
The way things are going today, we should call these "profits" "pro forma profits" or "deferred tax", because if they don't pay taxes today, they will pay them in the form of fines and lawyers in five years when they are going to be audited...
The reason is simple you can't get away from your workers are your customers Matthew 20 reality check. For every penny they gain the money multiplier amplifies the loss. At first the lose isn't just a loss in savings, but eventually spending is effected. Once that occurs short term debt is used, but debt builds and you have a huge consumption crash followed by debt crisis followed by bank failures. Escept we now have the too big to fail and prosecute? We have been doing this cycle now for too long and each time the economy emerges out ever slower and slower as key players become Humpty Dumpties and no longer can participate in the economic recovery.
We are playing the board game of Monopoly, but no-one can leave the game. We are now at the 40% point and if you play the game you know that after you get 40% of the property it is just a matter of time when you win and everyone looses. Including the winner.
That's right. You hit the nail on the head.
You have a link (m.addthisedge.com) somewhere on your page that causes your page to never completely load (my status bar has been showing Waiting for m.addthisedge.com... for the last 10 minutes). You might want to remove or modify that link so your page completely loads.
That's Gather trying to load an advertisement. It has nothing to do with my post.
May I state over here that some people seems to believe that governments are issuing money for their own convenience.
In reality (and other words) this is been translated into "too big to fail".
The banks, I mean the man owns, those who are either member of the FED (America) or driving the Central Banks (all other countries) keep extending credits to:
1) Themselves for speculations and for driving the markets
2) Mortgages with insufficient margins which require credit extensions or compelled sales which obviously send the overall values to South
3) Extending "small credits" with high interest rates through several systems which include the credit card one.
4) but not least, a specific speculation against the currencies switching to commodities (buying gold, silver, copper, grains on futures)
Therefore governments are compelled to either accept high inflation rates or to compell o banking system to bankruptcy. They chose to deny inflation AND tokeep mon with the bankig system: the sole and remaining solution is to save the banks at any cost, transfering the debts to the tax payer expecting a nonsense: austerity and a higher GDP.
A system whiich penalizes the future while present remains questionable.
It's a pretty stupid system for our economy, isn't it. But it makes some people very rich.
This why the bankers and their main shareholders are so reluctant to a transfer tax (Tobin tax): their speculations against the currencies would be discovered!