[Brenda]

It vaporizes. The financial market is a market on paper, until you want to cash in.

[andyt]

So why can't the debts used to replace these vaporized profits also just be vaporized? Why aren't the debts on paper as much as the profits?

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Is this what the "money is debt" folks are talking about? I'm not big on 9/11 conspiracy theories pr the JOO$ controlling the world, but I am intensely suspicious of the banks. Partly because I'm a reasonably intelligent person, yet I don't understand how the monetary system operates, and partly because something seems fishy about invesntment banks and the growing income divide.

Sorry to keep bugging you with questions.

I don't claim to fully understand how the monetary system works either. I'm not convinced that monetary economists even fully understand it either. But yes, this is what the "money is debt/Zietgiest" folks are off on. The central bank is, by law, the only agent in the economy that is allowed to produce currency. They loan out that currency to the private banks, who then loan it out to the public. So, yes, since each dollar in circulation is loaned out from the central bank to the private banks at interest, there is an element of debt that is generated from the central bank's monopoly on currency production. You, as a user of money, are essentially borrowing it from the central bank with the private bank acting as a middle-man (and taking a middle-man's share along the way; the difference between their lending rate and the bank rate).

If the central bank's fee ends up as revenue for the government, then it's just like any other government service. We pay the bank rate to the government for the convenience of using the Canadian dollar to conduct our business, the safety and security it provides us as a store of our wealth, etc, etc. Where the conspiracy theories come from is the notion that the world's central banks (the US Federal Reserve Bank, specifically) are covertly owned by some Illuminati/Pentaverate secret cartel of a sort that sucks that 1% (or whatever the bank rate may be) for their own private profit. When it comes to the Canadian dollar, I'm fairly confident that that share is returned to our government and the bank rate is just a service fee we pay for the maintenace of our financial system and credit markets. But maybe the Jooos run the Fed. I don't know.

I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.

[Brenda]

Because the lender still wants to see their money, and wants you to cash in at the time your contract is up. Whether your shares are worth 0 or 5 times as much is not their problem.

You just can't vaporize a negative. When the kettle is empty, but you keep it on the burner, it will eventually burn your place down (I like the visual of "explode" better tho ).

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The US bailout money went straight into the bankers' bank accounts and everyone else got fucked.

That's a pretty decent synopsis of the bailouts.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And on a more personal scale, welfare programs don't work for the exact same reasons. If all you're doing is subsidizing someone else's profligate ways then you're not helping them at all.

I guess we'd need to define "work". Welfare programs work, in the sense that they allow impoverished people to eat when they otherwise likely would not have. So in the short term, I think they "work". But I'm not sure you can characterize most people on welfare as having "profligate ways" (nice adjective, btw ). They're most often victims of circumstance. True, in some measure of their own doing, but unintended just the same.

But I certainly agree with your implication that we don't help people, in the longterm, if we help them too much by the dole. If the supports are too cushy, then they do act as a disincentive to improve ones circumstances (which is one of reasons I so strongly oppose minimum wage programs). There's a fine line between state-encouraged laziness and good old fashioned Christian charity.

Without taking up too much space let me say that when I see people standing on the corner with a sign asking for help there are times that I do give the person something. But if I see them smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, or if they have a vehicle parked nearby then they get nothing.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And on a more personal scale, welfare programs don't work for the exact same reasons. If all you're doing is subsidizing someone else's profligate ways then you're not helping them at all.

I guess we'd need to define "work". Welfare programs work, in the sense that they allow impoverished people to eat when they otherwise likely would not have. So in the short term, I think they "work". But I'm not sure you can characterize most people on welfare as having "profligate ways" (nice adjective, btw ). They're most often victims of circumstance. True, in some measure of their own doing, but unintended just the same.

But I certainly agree with your implication that we don't help people, in the longterm, if we help them too much by the dole. If the supports are too cushy, then they do act as a disincentive to improve ones circumstances (which is one of reasons I so strongly oppose minimum wage programs). There's a fine line between state-encouraged laziness and good old fashioned Christian charity.

Without taking up too much space let me say that when I see people standing on the corner with a sign asking for help there are times that I do give the person something. But if I see them smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, or if they have a vehicle parked nearby then they get nothing.

When my sister visited Venice a few years back, she saw a frail old woman begging for money, so my sister gave her a couple of euros. Later in the day, as my sister was leaving the area, she watched the same old woman walk into a washroom and re-appear five minutes later dressed in nice clothes. She then walked to an Audi in the parking lot and drove off!

I donate to non-profits all the time (used clothing, food, small amounts of money, etc), but I never, ever give money to homeless people. I have, on occasion, offered to buy them lunch. Most of them turn it down and want the money instead - which I refuse.

[Zipperfish]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Without taking up too much space let me say that when I see people standing on the corner with a sign asking for help there are times that I do give the person something. But if I see them smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, or if they have a vehicle parked nearby then they get nothing.

When my sister visited Venice a few years back, she saw a frail old woman begging for money, so my sister gave her a couple of euros. Later in the day, as my sister was leaving the area, she watched the same old woman walk into a washroom and re-appear five minutes later dressed in nice clothes. She then walked to an Audi in the parking lot and drove off!

I donate to non-profits all the time (used clothing, food, small amounts of money, etc), but I never, ever give money to homeless people. I have, on occasion, offered to buy them lunch. Most of them turn it down and want the money instead - which I refuse.[/quote]

I use the adopt a homeless guy approach. Get to know one of them and then help them out now and then. I don't really care if he spends sit on booze or smokes.

But if I run ibnto some guy wearing $150 Nikes asking for chnage I'm all "Sorry, alls I got is fifties."

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't claim to fully understand how the monetary system works either. I'm not convinced that monetary economists even fully understand it either. But yes, this is what the "money is debt/Zietgiest" folks are off on. The central bank is, by law, the only agent in the economy that is allowed to produce currency. They loan out that currency to the private banks, who then loan it out to the public. So, yes, since each dollar in circulation is loaned out from the central bank to the private banks at interest, there is an element of debt that is generated from the central bank's monopoly on currency production. You, as a user of money, are essentially borrowing it from the central bank with the private bank acting as a middle-man (and taking a middle-man's share along the way; the difference between their lending rate and the bank rate).

If the central bank's fee ends up as revenue for the government, then it's just like any other government service. We pay the bank rate to the government for the convenience of using the Canadian dollar to conduct our business, the safety and security it provides us as a store of our wealth, etc, etc. Where the conspiracy theories come from is the notion that the world's central banks (the US Federal Reserve Bank, specifically) are covertly owned by some Illuminati/Pentaverate secret cartel of a sort that sucks that 1% (or whatever the bank rate may be) for their own private profit. When it comes to the Canadian dollar, I'm fairly confident that that share is returned to our government and the bank rate is just a service fee we pay for the maintenace of our financial system and credit markets. But maybe the Jooos run the Fed. I don't know.

I'm not sure if that answers your question or not.

It addresses my question for sure. Thanks

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Without taking up too much space let me say that when I see people standing on the corner with a sign asking for help there are times that I do give the person something. But if I see them smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, or if they have a vehicle parked nearby then they get nothing.

Actually Bart said that, I said this;

bootlegga bootlegga:

When my sister visited Venice a few years back, she saw a frail old woman begging for money, so my sister gave her a couple of euros. Later in the day, as my sister was leaving the area, she watched the same old woman walk into a washroom and re-appear five minutes later dressed in nice clothes. She then walked to an Audi in the parking lot and drove off!

I donate to non-profits all the time (used clothing, food, small amounts of money, etc), but I never, ever give money to homeless people. I have, on occasion, offered to buy them lunch. Most of them turn it down and want the money instead - which I refuse.

I use the adopt a homeless guy approach. Get to know one of them and then help them out now and then. I don't really care if he spends sit on booze or smokes.

But if I run ibnto some guy wearing $150 Nikes asking for chnage I'm all "Sorry, alls I got is fifties."

Call me self-righteous or a do-gooder, but I'm of the opinion that I want to help people, not help them sink deeper into whatever addiction they might have.

That's why I tend not to give anything to people on the street, but support non-profits that help them instead.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Without taking up too much space let me say that when I see people standing on the corner with a sign asking for help there are times that I do give the person something. But if I see them smoking a cigarette, talking on a cell phone, or if they have a vehicle parked nearby then they get nothing.

Actually Bart said that, I said this;

bootlegga bootlegga:

When my sister visited Venice a few years back, she saw a frail old woman begging for money, so my sister gave her a couple of euros. Later in the day, as my sister was leaving the area, she watched the same old woman walk into a washroom and re-appear five minutes later dressed in nice clothes. She then walked to an Audi in the parking lot and drove off!

I donate to non-profits all the time (used clothing, food, small amounts of money, etc), but I never, ever give money to homeless people. I have, on occasion, offered to buy them lunch. Most of them turn it down and want the money instead - which I refuse.

I use the adopt a homeless guy approach. Get to know one of them and then help them out now and then. I don't really care if he spends sit on booze or smokes.

But if I run ibnto some guy wearing $150 Nikes asking for chnage I'm all "Sorry, alls I got is fifties."

Call me self-righteous or a do-gooder, but I'm of the opinion that I want to help people, not help them sink deeper into whatever addiction they might have.

That's why I tend not to give anything to people on the street, but support non-profits that help them instead.

I never give money either, but I will on occasion buy them a meal ( the older ones, not the ones who are young and should be working)

[Zipperfish]

Most of them would prefer a beer. I'm not the moralizing type. The guys the bug me are the agressive ones, and I'm not above popping one of those guys after a couple of warnings.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Most of them would prefer a beer. I'm not the moralizing type. The guys the bug me are the agressive ones, and I'm not above popping one of those guys after a couple of warnings.

I don't see myself as a moralizing type either really (although I can see how some might). I just prefer to see my hard earned money go towards helping people who want help instead of people who just want to get high. I believe in second chances and if what little I can afford to give offers someone a second chance, then that's what I'd prefer to spend my money on.

If I want to give money to people who just want to get drunk/high and have a good time, I've got some immature friends (35 going on 18) I can give it to instead!

[Lemmy]

...or 43 going on 18?

Since I live in a rural community, the only time I really encounter beggars and bums is when I'm visiting a city and, therefore, staying at a hotel. I just grab some fruit or croissants or whatever from the breakfast buffet at the hotel and give it to some homeless character near the hotel. But if I give anyone cash from my pocket, I do it knowing full-well that his spending choices aren't likely the same as most peoples'.

[uwish]

we are not part of the EU, if those member nations can't get their act together why should the burden fall on us?? Does this mean if we hit a wall we can get money from them???