Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalsim vs. Christianity

ianspigler
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.
thisisnottom
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:11:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

Jesus was a communist and a cannabis farmer, whats new?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:14:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

Capitalism is not incompatible with charity. Capitalism makes charity possible by giving the individual control over his own resources; if there is no personal property (communism), charity is almost impossible. The impoverishing effects of controlled markets make charity more necessary and less likely; the uplifting effects of free markets make charitable funds easier to come by and less necessary.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:16:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.:

Sorry, but you have it all wrong. Jesus said GIVE to the poor, he didn't say rob from the rich and have a middle-man dispense it to the poor.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:28:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
no he was against tax collectors-conservative
he was against most governments-conservative
he was for personal giving, not governmental giving. Get your facts straight. (not to be mean)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:47:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lol, from what I have read so far, I have little to add. Jesus was for giving yes, but that does not mean governmental giving, he meant giving when people actually mean it, not just to bribe someone for their vote. I find that if I want to give money/clothes/ect. I NEVER go to the government, simply because churches are more reliable on how much of the money will reach point B, and where it will reach. In short for philanthropy(and a lot more) Church > Government
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:52:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm curious why you think that Capitalism keeps the poor poor. After all, the poor have seen rising standards of living in every modern capitalist country. The poor do much better in capitalist countries than they do in socialist countries.

As far as Christianity goes, Christianity best fits with a market anarchist worldview. The state, by nature, is force and Christianity is supposedly against force. In a market anarchist society, people can give as much to the poor as they want... without a violent state.

What is so Christian about the state again?
President of DDO
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 1:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

I tend to agree. The only time Jesus became violent in the gospels was when he chased the money lenders (bankers) out of the Temple with whips!

I think there needs to be more of that attitude today. Bankers are the true parasites of society.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 3:25:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 1:40:36 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

I tend to agree. The only time Jesus became violent in the gospels was when he chased the money lenders (bankers) out of the Temple with whips!

I think there needs to be more of that attitude today. Bankers are the true parasites of society.

Good point.

The parasites aren't the people who aren't working and living off the resources that the state violently stole from the people who are working in a society. Those people are the oppressed.

The real parasites are the people who lend out resources to people, so they can start businesses and get educations, and then make those people pay back the loans. Those parasites!
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 3:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
yeah jesus was more of a conservative, he had liberal views in some areas, but he was a moderate republican. So he wasn't either of the 2 extremes.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 3:33:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
let me correct my self, he was LIKE a moderate republican. He wasn't one due to the fact those didn't exist
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism. In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor." Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:04:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Christ drove the merchants out of the Temple, not out of the city. His point was mainly the way they were desecrating the Temple, not the fact that they were cheating the people who bought there.

And as for keeping the poor poor; American or Japansese "poor" tend to be richer than rich men in North Korea, or a score of other third-world nations ruined by communism.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:52:16 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
I'm curious why you think that Capitalism keeps the poor poor. After all, the poor have seen rising standards of living in every modern capitalist country. The poor do much better in capitalist countries than they do in socialist countries.

As far as Christianity goes, Christianity best fits with a market anarchist worldview. The state, by nature, is force and Christianity is supposedly against force. In a market anarchist society, people can give as much to the poor as they want... without a violent state.


Completely agreed. Were the entire country composed of people who lived their lives in accordance with Christianity, the state would be virtually redundant. Christianity, truly lived, would permit an lean minarchist state to flourish.

What is so Christian about the state again?

The state is best described this way: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:15:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism.

China has high GDP growth and is only communist in name.

In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor."

Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.

Dude, Europe is quite wealthy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:26:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:15:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism.

China has high GDP growth and is only communist in name.

Largely True... but High GDP growth only reflects catching up due to some market reforms after years of economic misery and oppression. This guy puts it best.

http://www.nationalreview.com...


In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor."

Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.

Dude, Europe is quite wealthy.

Europe is basically the same mixed economy model as the US... except, Europe does generally have larger welfare states..

And, they have paid the price in economic Growth... France and Italy have seen stagnant economic growth for decades, as two examples...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:27:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 1:40:36 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor" It also keeps them suppressed.

I tend to agree. The only time Jesus became violent in the gospels was when he chased the money lenders (bankers) out of the Temple with whips!

I think there needs to be more of that attitude today. Bankers are the true parasites of society.

Good point.

The parasites aren't the people who aren't working and living off the resources that the state violently stole from the people who are working in a society. Those people are the oppressed.

The real parasites are the people who lend out resources to people, so they can start businesses and get educations, and then make those people pay back the loans. Those parasites!
President of DDO
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 8:59:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism. In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor." Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.

China is not a good example of Communism. Also, if you go to Europe, you're going to find more Capitalism...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:26:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:15:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism.

China has high GDP growth and is only communist in name.


Largely True... but High GDP growth only reflects catching up due to some market reforms after years of economic misery and oppression. This guy puts it best.


http://www.nationalreview.com...



In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor."

Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.

Dude, Europe is quite wealthy.


Europe is basically the same mixed economy model as the US... except, Europe does generally have larger welfare states..

And, they have paid the price in economic Growth... France and Italy have seen stagnant economic growth for decades, as two examples...

Low GDP growth does not necessarily indicate stagnating living standards. Population growth warps the numbers, and some of the most prosperous nations on the planet experience an average annual growth rate of around 1% in some cases. I'm not totally sure why that is, but it makes a difference.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:05:53 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:26:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 4:15:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/10/2011 3:45:38 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Capitalism keeps the poor, poor? How? In our country, the poor live in complete luxury compared to say, China's poor, or North Korea's, two very good examples of Communism.

China has high GDP growth and is only communist in name.


Largely True... but High GDP growth only reflects catching up due to some market reforms after years of economic misery and oppression. This guy puts it best.


http://www.nationalreview.com...



In fact, I think it's "If Capitalism keeps the poor, poor, the Communism keep everyone poor."

Seriously, if you don't like Capitalism, go to Europe.

Dude, Europe is quite wealthy.


Europe is basically the same mixed economy model as the US... except, Europe does generally have larger welfare states..

And, they have paid the price in economic Growth... France and Italy have seen stagnant economic growth for decades, as two examples...

Low GDP growth does not necessarily indicate stagnating living standards. Population growth warps the numbers, and some of the most prosperous nations on the planet experience an average annual growth rate of around 1% in some cases. I'm not totally sure why that is, but it makes a difference.

Ya, even looking at per capita GDP you can still see that large welfare states hurt economic growth
President of DDO
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 1:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 3:25:41 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 1:40:36 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

I tend to agree. The only time Jesus became violent in the gospels was when he chased the money lenders (bankers) out of the Temple with whips!

I think there needs to be more of that attitude today. Bankers are the true parasites of society.


Good point.

The parasites aren't the people who aren't working and living off the resources that the state violently stole from the people who are working in a society. Those people are the oppressed.

The real parasites are the people who lend out resources to people, so they can start businesses and get educations, and then make those people pay back the loans. Those parasites!

In the UK, fraudulent benefit cheats cost us tens of millions of pounds a year. Now let's compare that with the global recession caused by the private banking crisis.
The implicit subsidy to the banking sectoris 187 billion pounds according to Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. The total cost of the recession as a result of banking failure according to the National Audit Office (Dec 2010 report) is a colossal 512 billion pounds! The total tax contribution from banks to the UK is only 55 billion pounds.

It's a similar pattern in the rest of the western world.

Under the current debt-based money system, banks are net wealth extractors from the economy.

A manageable amount of debt is fine if it's geared towards self-liquidating debt (e.g. sound mortgages or good businesses). However if it's geared towards consumptive debt it's bad. People generally only borrow if they need to or if they are enticed to. Banks were controlling the tap of credit leading up to the recession.

The reason people need to borrow is because our money supply is only temporary and as loans get repaid, new loans must be set up in order to counteract the contraction of the money supply and pay off the interest on the old loan. The money supply and an equivalent debt have been expanding exponentially for decades.

The result is that in the UK, 97% of our money supply has been created as an interest-bearing debt to a bank or financial institution. In the US it's about 99%.

Where can this go? Is ths amount of debt healthy? In order for someone to get out of debt, someone has to sink deeper into debt to sustain the existing system.

I think it's the highway to insanity.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 1:34:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 1:16:19 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/10/2011 3:25:41 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 1:40:36 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:25:16 AM, ianspigler wrote:
The two are simply incompatible, Jesus always taught to give to the poor and early Christians distributed money and land amongst themselves ( the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate commented that the Christians "never let there own go hungry.") By contrast capitalism works "By keeping the poor, poor." It also keeps them suppressed.

I tend to agree. The only time Jesus became violent in the gospels was when he chased the money lenders (bankers) out of the Temple with whips!

I think there needs to be more of that attitude today. Bankers are the true parasites of society.


Good point.

The parasites aren't the people who aren't working and living off the resources that the state violently stole from the people who are working in a society. Those people are the oppressed.

The real parasites are the people who lend out resources to people, so they can start businesses and get educations, and then make those people pay back the loans. Those parasites!

In the UK, fraudulent benefit cheats cost us tens of millions of pounds a year. Now let's compare that with the global recession caused by the private banking crisis.
The implicit subsidy to the banking sectoris 187 billion pounds according to Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. The total cost of the recession as a result of banking failure according to the National Audit Office (Dec 2010 report) is a colossal 512 billion pounds! The total tax contribution from banks to the UK is only 55 billion pounds.

It's a similar pattern in the rest of the western world.

Under the current debt-based money system, banks are net wealth extractors from the economy.

A manageable amount of debt is fine if it's geared towards self-liquidating debt (e.g. sound mortgages or good businesses). However if it's geared towards consumptive debt it's bad. People generally only borrow if they need to or if they are enticed to. Banks were controlling the tap of credit leading up to the recession.

The reason people need to borrow is because our money supply is only temporary and as loans get repaid, new loans must be set up in order to counteract the contraction of the money supply and pay off the interest on the old loan. The money supply and an equivalent debt have been expanding exponentially for decades.

: The result is that in the UK, 97% of our money supply has been created as an interest-bearing debt to a bank or financial institution. In the US it's about 99%.

Where can this go? Is ths amount of debt healthy? In order for someone to get out of debt, someone has to sink deeper into debt to sustain the existing system.

I think it's the highway to insanity.

Everytime you show me that statistic, you never show me we you got it from. I assume you got it from this, the Book WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM:

"Physical cash accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total stock of money in the economy. Commercial bank money – credit and coexistent deposits – makes up the remaining 97 per cent of the money supply. "

Yet that doesn't mean that its interest bearing debt. It just means we're moving towards a cashless world. How would you even deterimine what money is created via debt and what isn't and what money supply would you be measuring to do that? Would you include Certificate of Deposits as part of the money stock? (They really shouldn't be since your money is locked in and its similar to owning a bond).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 2:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

In the UK, fraudulent benefit cheats cost us tens of millions of pounds a year. Now let's compare that with the global recession caused by the private banking crisis.
The implicit subsidy to the banking sectoris 187 billion pounds according to Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. The total cost of the recession as a result of banking failure according to the National Audit Office (Dec 2010 report) is a colossal 512 billion pounds! The total tax contribution from banks to the UK is only 55 billion pounds.

It's a similar pattern in the rest of the western world.

Under the current debt-based money system, banks are net wealth extractors from the economy.

A manageable amount of debt is fine if it's geared towards self-liquidating debt (e.g. sound mortgages or good businesses). However if it's geared towards consumptive debt it's bad. People generally only borrow if they need to or if they are enticed to. Banks were controlling the tap of credit leading up to the recession.

The reason people need to borrow is because our money supply is only temporary and as loans get repaid, new loans must be set up in order to counteract the contraction of the money supply and pay off the interest on the old loan. The money supply and an equivalent debt have been expanding exponentially for decades.

The result is that in the UK, 97% of our money supply has been created as an interest-bearing debt to a bank or financial institution. In the US it's about 99%.

Where can this go? Is ths amount of debt healthy? In order for someone to get out of debt, someone has to sink deeper into debt to sustain the existing system.

I think it's the highway to insanity.

Ya, that would be government's fault, not the bank's fault.
President of DDO
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:21:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 1:34:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Everytime you show me that statistic, you never show me we you got it from. I assume you got it from this, the Book WHERE DOES MONEY COME FROM:

"Physical cash accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total stock of money in the economy. Commercial bank money – credit and coexistent deposits – makes up the remaining 97 per cent of the money supply. "

Yet that doesn't mean that its interest bearing debt. It just means we're moving towards a cashless world. How would you even deterimine what money is created via debt and what isn't and what money supply would you be measuring to do that? Would you include Certificate of Deposits as part of the money stock? (They really shouldn't be since your money is locked in and its similar to owning a bond).

Banks create new money (the numbers in your bank account) when they make loans. As the Bank of England says, "When banks make loans they create additional [bank] deposits for those that have borrowed the money."1 This means that nearly every pound in the economy today was created when somebody went into debt. All the money that we need to trade, to buy food, and to run businesses, must be borrowed from the profit-seeking banking sector, at a huge cost to us, and a massive benefit to them.

How Did This Happen?

Laws that make it illegal for you to print your own £5 or £10 notes have been in place since 1844. But those laws haven't been updated to account for the fact that almost all money now is electronic. Because of this loophole, banks worldwide now have the power to create money, effectively out of nothing.

How can We Fix this?

A few simple changes to the banking system could remove this power to create money from the banks. We just need to move away from the current banking system - known as 'fractional reserve banking' - to what we call full-reserve banking.

Originally this number money was simply written into huge ledger books in the bank, but is now stored in huge computer databases maintained by the banks.
97% of All Money is Digital Money...

With the rise in debit and credit cards, internet bank, direct debit and so on, this digital number money makes up 97% of all the money in the economy - around £2,151 billion compared to £50 billion of cash [1].
...So the ‘Money' in Your Bank Account was Created By Private Companies

The numbers in your own bank account were all created, essentially out of nothing, not by the Bank of England or the Royal Mint, but by commercial banks.

The banks are able to create this ‘number money' through the accounting process that they use to make loans, using a business model known as 'fractional reserve banking'. Rather than taking money from a saver and lending it to a borrower (as per the common understanding of banking), they simply write new numbers into the bank account of a borrower - effectively creating new money.

Without seeing the process in action, it can be a little hard to believe, so below are a few quotes ‘straight from the horse's mouth' which confirm this amazing fact:

"...by far the largest role in creating broad money is played by the banking sector... when banks make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed the money." - Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2007 Q3

"Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself'. That is, banks extend credit by creating money." - Paul Tucker, Deputy Governer of the Bank of England & member of the Monetary Policy Committee

"... changes in the money stock primarily reflect developments in bank lending as new deposits are created." - Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p378

"...the banking sector plays such an important role in the creation of money. Changes in the terms for deposits will affect the demand for money, while changes in the terms for loans will affect the amount of bank lending and hence money supply." - Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p383

"The money-creating sector in the United Kingdom consists of resident banks (including the Bank of England) and building societies" - Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p405

Bank deposits (the numbers in your bank account) now make up 97.4% of the total quantity of money in the economy2. By volume of payments, bank deposits are used for 99.91% of transactions and transfers, with cash being used for just 0.09% of transfers3. Consequently, the physical currency issued by the state has been almost entirely replaced by a digital currency issued by private companies. The UK's money has been privatised.

The 'Rules of Money'

Under a fractional reserve banking system, there are two 'rules of money':

1. When a bank makes a loan, it increases the amount of money in the hands of the public (by increasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits)
2. When a member of the public repays a loan, it reduces the amount of money in the hands of the public (by decreasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits)

Consequently, through excessive lending between 2000 and 2008, banks were able to double the money supply in just 7 years - an increase in the total money supply from £884 billion to £1,674 billion4.

All the ‘Money' in Your Bank Account Represents Someone Else's Debt

Since all the number money in your account was created by banks making loans, this means that for every pound in your bank account, someone else is in debt by an equal amount.

In fact, due to compound interest, the public's debts are now greater than all the money that exists in the economy. According to Bank of England figures, if the UK public collectively took all the money in our bank accounts and used it to pay down our debts, we would end up with no money at all and still owe £306billion (plus interest) to the banks!5

In other words, we now have a debt-based money supply issued entirely by private, profit-seeking companies. Our money supply has been effectively privatised.

1 Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p377 [↩]
2 See data series LPQAUYM and LPMAVAA from the Bank of England's Interactive Statistical Database at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk... [↩]
3 Bank of England Payment Systems Oversight Report 2008, available at: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk... [↩]
4 See data series LPQAUYM and LPMAVAA from the Bank of England's Interactive Statistical Database at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk... [↩]
5 Bank of England Statistics. M4 (monetary financial institutions sterling liabilites to the private sector - what the banks owe to companies and households) as at 30th September 2010 was £2,186 billion. As of the same date, M4 Lending (monetary financial institutions' sterling net lending excluding securitisations to private sector - what individuals and companies owe to the banks) was £2,492 billion.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:32:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 2:03:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

In the UK, fraudulent benefit cheats cost us tens of millions of pounds a year. Now let's compare that with the global recession caused by the private banking crisis.
The implicit subsidy to the banking sectoris 187 billion pounds according to Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. The total cost of the recession as a result of banking failure according to the National Audit Office (Dec 2010 report) is a colossal 512 billion pounds! The total tax contribution from banks to the UK is only 55 billion pounds.

It's a similar pattern in the rest of the western world.

Under the current debt-based money system, banks are net wealth extractors from the economy.

A manageable amount of debt is fine if it's geared towards self-liquidating debt (e.g. sound mortgages or good businesses). However if it's geared towards consumptive debt it's bad. People generally only borrow if they need to or if they are enticed to. Banks were controlling the tap of credit leading up to the recession.

The reason people need to borrow is because our money supply is only temporary and as loans get repaid, new loans must be set up in order to counteract the contraction of the money supply and pay off the interest on the old loan. The money supply and an equivalent debt have been expanding exponentially for decades.

The result is that in the UK, 97% of our money supply has been created as an interest-bearing debt to a bank or financial institution. In the US it's about 99%.

Where can this go? Is ths amount of debt healthy? In order for someone to get out of debt, someone has to sink deeper into debt to sustain the existing system.

I think it's the highway to insanity.


Ya, that would be government's fault, not the bank's fault.

Governments across the western world are the stooges of the banks and big business. This is mostly due to the political party funding model. In the UK it would be better if all political parties were state-funded on a pro rata basis in terms of percentage of votes cast during the previous election (or something similar) and individual donations were capped at a sensible level. Politicians couldn't then be bought by the corporations.

Banks are making their money because governments are borrowing at high rates and lending at low rates. There's also massive amounts of liquidity in terms of QE. This could have been given to ordinary people debt-free to increase aggregate demand but instead it has been given to the banks who then lend it on at interest further increasing the indebtedness of the people. The inflation risk is the same either way due to the nature of fractional reserve banking and an integrated financial system.

An estimate by pressure group Positive Money has revealed that only 8% of bank money in the UK is used for productive purposes. The vast bulk is being used for speculation (gambling).
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:58:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 3:32:51 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 12/11/2011 2:03:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

In the UK, fraudulent benefit cheats cost us tens of millions of pounds a year. Now let's compare that with the global recession caused by the private banking crisis.
The implicit subsidy to the banking sectoris 187 billion pounds according to Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England. The total cost of the recession as a result of banking failure according to the National Audit Office (Dec 2010 report) is a colossal 512 billion pounds! The total tax contribution from banks to the UK is only 55 billion pounds.

It's a similar pattern in the rest of the western world.

Under the current debt-based money system, banks are net wealth extractors from the economy.

A manageable amount of debt is fine if it's geared towards self-liquidating debt (e.g. sound mortgages or good businesses). However if it's geared towards consumptive debt it's bad. People generally only borrow if they need to or if they are enticed to. Banks were controlling the tap of credit leading up to the recession.

The reason people need to borrow is because our money supply is only temporary and as loans get repaid, new loans must be set up in order to counteract the contraction of the money supply and pay off the interest on the old loan. The money supply and an equivalent debt have been expanding exponentially for decades.

The result is that in the UK, 97% of our money supply has been created as an interest-bearing debt to a bank or financial institution. In the US it's about 99%.

Where can this go? Is ths amount of debt healthy? In order for someone to get out of debt, someone has to sink deeper into debt to sustain the existing system.

I think it's the highway to insanity.


Ya, that would be government's fault, not the bank's fault.

Governments across the western world are the stooges of the banks and big business. This is mostly due to the political party funding model. In the UK it would be better if all political parties were state-funded on a pro rata basis in terms of percentage of votes cast during the previous election (or something similar) and individual donations were capped at a sensible level. Politicians couldn't then be bought by the corporations.

Ya, government is the stooge of big banks, so we should make government bigger... great solution

I love how you think that funding parties based on votes cast is a good idea... If this were the case, no third parties could ever gain power...

And, forget free speech under this model


Banks are making their money because governments are borrowing at high rates and lending at low rates. There's also massive amounts of liquidity in terms of QE. This could have been given to ordinary people debt-free to increase aggregate demand but instead it has been given to the banks who then lend it on at interest further increasing the indebtedness of the people. The inflation risk is the same either way due to the nature of fractional reserve banking and an integrated financial system.

So, it is government's fauly... good...


An estimate by pressure group Positive Money has revealed that only 8% of bank money in the UK is used for productive purposes. The vast bulk is being used for speculation (gambling).

Define gambling...
President of DDO
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:07:55 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 9:05:53 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Low GDP growth does not necessarily indicate stagnating living standards. Population growth warps the numbers, and some of the most prosperous nations on the planet experience an average annual growth rate of around 1% in some cases. I'm not totally sure why that is, but it makes a difference.

Ya, even looking at per capita GDP you can still see that large welfare states hurt economic growth

How so? The European welfare states have the highest per capita wealth in the world, with few exceptions..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:09:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 11:46:10 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/10/2011 11:07:55 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/10/2011 9:05:53 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Low GDP growth does not necessarily indicate stagnating living standards. Population growth warps the numbers, and some of the most prosperous nations on the planet experience an average annual growth rate of around 1% in some cases. I'm not totally sure why that is, but it makes a difference.

Ya, even looking at per capita GDP you can still see that large welfare states hurt economic growth

How so? The European welfare states have the highest per capita wealth in the world, with few exceptions..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita

Do they have a higher GDP per Capita than third world or communist countries... yes?

But, that is absurd to suggest that that means the welfare state has been successful...

The USA... which has had a smaller welfare state than most European nations... has a higher GDP per capita than virtually all of the democratic socialist nations in Europe (Norway is rich in oil and Luxembourg is a small banking haven, so these countries are outliers)...

Singapore, which has a much more free market and less socialist economy, is even much richer than the US...

So, a simple look at the world confirms that welfare states do mean slower economic growth

But,
President of DDO
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:39:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 12:09:49 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/11/2011 11:46:10 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

How so? The European welfare states have the highest per capita wealth in the world, with few exceptions..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita

Do they have a higher GDP per Capita than third world or communist countries... yes?

But, that is absurd to suggest that that means the welfare state has been successful...

The USA... which has had a smaller welfare state than most European nations... has a higher GDP per capita than virtually all of the democratic socialist nations in Europe (Norway is rich in oil and Luxembourg is a small banking haven, so these countries are outliers)...

Singapore, which has a much more free market and less socialist economy, is even much richer than the US...

So, a simple look at the world confirms that welfare states do mean slower economic growth

But,

First, you say it's absurd to use these numbers to establish a causal relationship between European welfare states and prosperity, but then do just that to establish a causal relationship between market economies and prosperity.

You're a hypocrite.

Two, these European welfare states ALL rank toward the top of the list. Norway and Luxembourg are not the only ones. Keep in mind that Singapore might just be an exception as well since it is just one example after all. Thus, you haven't demonstrated that the European welfare state harms economic growth...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:47:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 12:39:41 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/12/2011 12:09:49 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/11/2011 11:46:10 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

How so? The European welfare states have the highest per capita wealth in the world, with few exceptions..

http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita

Do they have a higher GDP per Capita than third world or communist countries... yes?

But, that is absurd to suggest that that means the welfare state has been successful...

The USA... which has had a smaller welfare state than most European nations... has a higher GDP per capita than virtually all of the democratic socialist nations in Europe (Norway is rich in oil and Luxembourg is a small banking haven, so these countries are outliers)...

Singapore, which has a much more free market and less socialist economy, is even much richer than the US...

So, a simple look at the world confirms that welfare states do mean slower economic growth

But,

First, you say it's absurd to use these numbers to establish a causal relationship between European welfare states and prosperity, but then do just that to establish a causal relationship between market economies and prosperity.

You're a hypocrite.

Two, these European welfare states ALL rank toward the top of the list. Norway and Luxembourg are not the only ones. Keep in mind that Singapore might just be an exception as well since it is just one example after all. Thus, you haven't demonstrated that the European welfare state harms economic growth...

Look at first world, stable countries and the trend is clear... Market based economies pretty much always outperform large welfare states...

The US has done better than Europe:

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...

Market economies in Asia, like Hong Kong and Singapore, have had rapid economic growth over recent decades..

Ireland had a free market economy that did very well before debt crisis recently... Free market reforms helped UK in the 1980s

In contrast, France and Italy have had stagnant growth and large welfare states for decades... the same is true of virtually all welfare states.
President of DDO