It's just the whole 'making money with no work/risk' thing that bothers me.
No risk? Giving you my money and hoping you give it back is incredibly risky. But that's your point:
Perhaps it really would be sufficient to ban the reallocation ("investment") of funds that aren't your own.
Giving you his money isn't really all that risky at all.
Now, I'm not saying we end banking (because what you just suggested kills banking), but it would be more proper to talk about making sure people gave consent to having their money lended out.
Now, I'm not saying we end banking (because what you just suggested kills banking), but it would be more proper to talk about making sure people gave consent to having their money lended out.
Well now I have to ask, what's the actual benefit of banking? From what I can parse from old media, a lot of the promise was that it's risky to secure your own wealth so you let the bank secure your wealth for you (for a fee, I guess, no details ever in these old things). That can't be all there is to it. Is it a natural extension of hiring mercenary guards for the transfer of physical wealth? Or is it more to do with the phasing out of physical wealth in exchange for receipts and the convenience of fast, remote transferral?
Somewhat ironically, I think interest could be used in fixing the non-consentual lending. Anyone who flips the "you may lend my money" switch for their account should get some interest on their deposit, if it isn't possible to get actual dividends like one of those broker things. But this is total nonsense as long as we have forced and planned inflation, because it's bordering on coercion for how we manage our savings.
Security is partly it, but another aspect is that it could function as a safe form of investment so that money you aren't doing anything with could be used to lend capital to businesses in your local community, which is what the Credit Unions try to do. Also, the concept of "checking", being able to wire money very quickly from one place to another is a very useful act in transactions. Imagine if you had to mail gold coins everywhere!
There's all still a bit of risk to it, but the Government's insurance for savings & checking accounts is basically preventing people from realizing that their money actually does have risk sitting in a bank. The lie that the bank is even safer than your home only exists to try and make banking a core feature of everyone's life.
For example, nobody actually realizes when a bank fails. When was the last time you saw that happen? In 2008 it was happening on a daily basis, but nobody was told about it, because the government didn't want anyone to run on the banks. Government agents will literally remove everyone in the bank, seize all their records, basically seize control of the bank, and then pretend like everything is normal. A bank that is being closed would be staffed by tellers that are federal agents and you'd have no idea. The first sign something would be amiss is when they tell you that this particular branch is closing and that your funds are completely safe in another branch. If it's a bank that doesn't have other branches, you'll get a bank check to re-deposit your money, but that's rare because other banks will just buy out what's left of the failing bank, and you'll get the 'this branch is closing' speech.
It just looks like nobody's bank ever fails because the banks & government need you to keep believing that your money is facing zero risk inside of a bank. But if we were being honest, it isn't.
Anyone who flips the "you may lend my money" switch for their account should get some interest on their deposit, if it isn't possible to get actual dividends like one of those broker things.
That's actually what credit unions are supposed to do. You can take out special savings accounts that promise greater than inflation interest rates at specific amounts of money in the bank. They can lend that shit out, and you get a cut of the profits. You'll notice, however, that the government might not insure those, and you can't take out more than a certain amount.
The reason this isn't the norm is because Keynsian policy promotes these massive centralized banks into lending out everyone's saving's accounts & insuring them. This also boosts profits in the stock market, effectively gambling money. It makes a 4% annual return savings account that requires you keep no less than $10,000 in it at all times, and isn't insured, look stupid by comparison. If the market weren't so fucked, you might actually be able to look at a more profitable saving's option.
The whole point here is that the Keynsian system explicitly rejects saving as a good thing. Think about that: the monetary system is designed to prevent you from saving money.
because it's bordering on coercion for how we manage our savings.
It is coercion. Inflation removes your purchasing power and is caused by the government basically printing money (or allowing the banks to lend more money than exists). This is why the libertarians keep saying that inflation is a tax.
A bank that is being closed would be staffed by tellers that are federal agents and you'd have no idea.
Do you have more information about this? It sounds extreme. Is there a particular government agency responsible for such actions?
The whole point here is that the Keynsian system explicitly rejects saving as a good thing. Think about that: the monetary system is designed to prevent you from saving money.
Yeah, that's the key point about Keynesian economics I picked up from those videos you sent me on reddit. It has some far-reaching consequences that I might not be grasping, but it's not hard to understand why it's fucked on its own.
It reminds me of some class struggle arguments. I try to stay away from them because they aren't convincing, but Keynesian economics really gives the impression that it's being used to oppress the lower class. The useful takeaway from the argument is that the system punishes people that rely on common sense; people that understand saving money slowly should let them buy a house outright. Another step further and you see that it's a system that punishes a lack of reliance on the system, which must have been very attractive for power-wielders to adopt.
Further, I could suggest that this state-encouraged abandonment of common sense may have played a part in our current social justice predicament. Too many people trying to go with the flow, too many people not trying to question the world they live in. Kind of a perfect setup for this kind of attack.
You can take out special savings accounts that promise greater than inflation interest rates at specific amounts of money in the bank. They can lend that shit out, and you get a cut of the profits.
Hm. I'd been using credit unions for a long time, but never really noticed. I just went to them because they were the only banks I could regularly find that wouldn't try to bull the bullshit with overdrafts on debit cards after me telling the bank specifically that I wanted my transactions declined if I was going over balance. I've been hearing them mentioned positively for months online now, possibly a good sign.
If I had 5 digits of cash to invest, I'd probably look at foreclosed real estate before something ethical like the credit union special account. Real estate is retardedly easy money with a little luck and a big downpayment. We deserve another crash - a person should not be able to flip a house for such a huge profit. I'm not engaging in it, but I would sooner than playing with the stock market.
Imagine if you had to mail gold coins everywhere!
I do, often, for worldbuilding exercises. My understanding is that a lot of our inventions are born out of laziness - you make a tool for a job so now the job is easier and faster forever. In a way, it explains modern man's worship of convenience above all else lost; it's just a slight distortion of being motivated by laziness. If you went back in time to sell gameboys or calculators, you'd probably get a lot of excited buyers (the plot thread of getting chased out by the church is boring), but I'd honestly expect a decent percentage of the populace would refuse because they enjoyed their simple lifestyles. I could not expect the same of our current time being sold toys/tech from the future.
So I start with a setting that hasn't reached the modernization that sickens me, and try to find what developments/inventions are actually necessary and what could have alternate solutions. I can be obsessive about trying to understand things, so it's a convenient outlet.
But yeah, simple logistics problems that a dnd player might be confronted with: your 10k gold pieces weighs more than a horse can carry, how do you get it out of the dungeon? Despite the existence of supernatural stuff in most of these fictional worlds, I've found a lot of accurate reflections.
Do you have more information about this? It sounds extreme. Is there a particular government agency responsible for such actions?
I was able to find an old NPR Article from the Great Recession. The feds don't talk about this kind of thing because they are absolutely fucking terrified (for good reason) of a run on the banks.
(I can't believe this was more than 10 years ago. I remember listening to it like it was yesterday)
Further, I could suggest that this state-encouraged abandonment of common sense may have played a part in our current social justice predicament. Too many people trying to go with the flow, too many people not trying to question the world they live in.
Keynsianism is basically socialist economics, so it shouldn't surprise you that socialism is senseless. The socialists just don't want to accept that it's socialist in nature. The fundamental idea is that saving money and deflation is bad. Money not being spent, is money not being invested into the economy. Deflation in price can cause large businesses to fail because they can't respond to price shocks. And remember, saving money is bad, so those large businesses saving money is also bad.
Hence, the result is that the banking and financial system are absolutely filled to the brim with "malinvestment". There's no consequences to being wrong because everyone is protected from anything... unless you bought GameStop...
Socialism relies on this idea of experts spending your money for you because you can't be trusted to spend it properly yourself, that's why your money has to be spent. And yes, that means teaching the society to shut up, sit down, and trust the banks.
I've been hearing them mentioned positively for months online now, possibly a good sign.
They can be hit or miss. I've run into a few bad credit unions before, but that might just be my shitty area.
We deserve another crash - a person should not be able to flip a house for such a huge profit. I'm not engaging in it, but I would sooner than playing with the stock market.
Oh, don't worry, that crash is coming sooner than anyone believes. I don't think we'll make it to 2024 without a major crash... I mean, Great Depression style. Like, Weimar republic level inflation, even if they introduce a digital currency in time.
I wouldn't buy stocks or land right now considering that there's already becoming a bit of a real-estate crash. The Commercial Real Estate crash is already happening, a residential one would kill everything.
Imma keep stacking my silver.
your 10k gold pieces weighs more than a horse can carry, how do you get it out of the dungeon?
With 10k gold pieces you just buy the dungeon. The running median house price over the history of the US is about 100 gold ounces..
No risk? Giving you my money and hoping you give it back is incredibly risky. But that's your point:
Giving you his money isn't really all that risky at all.
Now, I'm not saying we end banking (because what you just suggested kills banking), but it would be more proper to talk about making sure people gave consent to having their money lended out.
Well now I have to ask, what's the actual benefit of banking? From what I can parse from old media, a lot of the promise was that it's risky to secure your own wealth so you let the bank secure your wealth for you (for a fee, I guess, no details ever in these old things). That can't be all there is to it. Is it a natural extension of hiring mercenary guards for the transfer of physical wealth? Or is it more to do with the phasing out of physical wealth in exchange for receipts and the convenience of fast, remote transferral?
Somewhat ironically, I think interest could be used in fixing the non-consentual lending. Anyone who flips the "you may lend my money" switch for their account should get some interest on their deposit, if it isn't possible to get actual dividends like one of those broker things. But this is total nonsense as long as we have forced and planned inflation, because it's bordering on coercion for how we manage our savings.
Security is partly it, but another aspect is that it could function as a safe form of investment so that money you aren't doing anything with could be used to lend capital to businesses in your local community, which is what the Credit Unions try to do. Also, the concept of "checking", being able to wire money very quickly from one place to another is a very useful act in transactions. Imagine if you had to mail gold coins everywhere!
There's all still a bit of risk to it, but the Government's insurance for savings & checking accounts is basically preventing people from realizing that their money actually does have risk sitting in a bank. The lie that the bank is even safer than your home only exists to try and make banking a core feature of everyone's life.
For example, nobody actually realizes when a bank fails. When was the last time you saw that happen? In 2008 it was happening on a daily basis, but nobody was told about it, because the government didn't want anyone to run on the banks. Government agents will literally remove everyone in the bank, seize all their records, basically seize control of the bank, and then pretend like everything is normal. A bank that is being closed would be staffed by tellers that are federal agents and you'd have no idea. The first sign something would be amiss is when they tell you that this particular branch is closing and that your funds are completely safe in another branch. If it's a bank that doesn't have other branches, you'll get a bank check to re-deposit your money, but that's rare because other banks will just buy out what's left of the failing bank, and you'll get the 'this branch is closing' speech.
It just looks like nobody's bank ever fails because the banks & government need you to keep believing that your money is facing zero risk inside of a bank. But if we were being honest, it isn't.
That's actually what credit unions are supposed to do. You can take out special savings accounts that promise greater than inflation interest rates at specific amounts of money in the bank. They can lend that shit out, and you get a cut of the profits. You'll notice, however, that the government might not insure those, and you can't take out more than a certain amount.
The reason this isn't the norm is because Keynsian policy promotes these massive centralized banks into lending out everyone's saving's accounts & insuring them. This also boosts profits in the stock market, effectively gambling money. It makes a 4% annual return savings account that requires you keep no less than $10,000 in it at all times, and isn't insured, look stupid by comparison. If the market weren't so fucked, you might actually be able to look at a more profitable saving's option.
The whole point here is that the Keynsian system explicitly rejects saving as a good thing. Think about that: the monetary system is designed to prevent you from saving money.
It is coercion. Inflation removes your purchasing power and is caused by the government basically printing money (or allowing the banks to lend more money than exists). This is why the libertarians keep saying that inflation is a tax.
Do you have more information about this? It sounds extreme. Is there a particular government agency responsible for such actions?
Yeah, that's the key point about Keynesian economics I picked up from those videos you sent me on reddit. It has some far-reaching consequences that I might not be grasping, but it's not hard to understand why it's fucked on its own.
It reminds me of some class struggle arguments. I try to stay away from them because they aren't convincing, but Keynesian economics really gives the impression that it's being used to oppress the lower class. The useful takeaway from the argument is that the system punishes people that rely on common sense; people that understand saving money slowly should let them buy a house outright. Another step further and you see that it's a system that punishes a lack of reliance on the system, which must have been very attractive for power-wielders to adopt.
Further, I could suggest that this state-encouraged abandonment of common sense may have played a part in our current social justice predicament. Too many people trying to go with the flow, too many people not trying to question the world they live in. Kind of a perfect setup for this kind of attack.
Hm. I'd been using credit unions for a long time, but never really noticed. I just went to them because they were the only banks I could regularly find that wouldn't try to bull the bullshit with overdrafts on debit cards after me telling the bank specifically that I wanted my transactions declined if I was going over balance. I've been hearing them mentioned positively for months online now, possibly a good sign.
If I had 5 digits of cash to invest, I'd probably look at foreclosed real estate before something ethical like the credit union special account. Real estate is retardedly easy money with a little luck and a big downpayment. We deserve another crash - a person should not be able to flip a house for such a huge profit. I'm not engaging in it, but I would sooner than playing with the stock market.
I do, often, for worldbuilding exercises. My understanding is that a lot of our inventions are born out of laziness - you make a tool for a job so now the job is easier and faster forever. In a way, it explains modern man's worship of convenience above all else lost; it's just a slight distortion of being motivated by laziness. If you went back in time to sell gameboys or calculators, you'd probably get a lot of excited buyers (the plot thread of getting chased out by the church is boring), but I'd honestly expect a decent percentage of the populace would refuse because they enjoyed their simple lifestyles. I could not expect the same of our current time being sold toys/tech from the future.
So I start with a setting that hasn't reached the modernization that sickens me, and try to find what developments/inventions are actually necessary and what could have alternate solutions. I can be obsessive about trying to understand things, so it's a convenient outlet.
But yeah, simple logistics problems that a dnd player might be confronted with: your 10k gold pieces weighs more than a horse can carry, how do you get it out of the dungeon? Despite the existence of supernatural stuff in most of these fictional worlds, I've found a lot of accurate reflections.
I was able to find an old NPR Article from the Great Recession. The feds don't talk about this kind of thing because they are absolutely fucking terrified (for good reason) of a run on the banks.
(I can't believe this was more than 10 years ago. I remember listening to it like it was yesterday)
Keynsianism is basically socialist economics, so it shouldn't surprise you that socialism is senseless. The socialists just don't want to accept that it's socialist in nature. The fundamental idea is that saving money and deflation is bad. Money not being spent, is money not being invested into the economy. Deflation in price can cause large businesses to fail because they can't respond to price shocks. And remember, saving money is bad, so those large businesses saving money is also bad.
Hence, the result is that the banking and financial system are absolutely filled to the brim with "malinvestment". There's no consequences to being wrong because everyone is protected from anything... unless you bought GameStop...
Socialism relies on this idea of experts spending your money for you because you can't be trusted to spend it properly yourself, that's why your money has to be spent. And yes, that means teaching the society to shut up, sit down, and trust the banks.
They can be hit or miss. I've run into a few bad credit unions before, but that might just be my shitty area.
Oh, don't worry, that crash is coming sooner than anyone believes. I don't think we'll make it to 2024 without a major crash... I mean, Great Depression style. Like, Weimar republic level inflation, even if they introduce a digital currency in time.
I wouldn't buy stocks or land right now considering that there's already becoming a bit of a real-estate crash. The Commercial Real Estate crash is already happening, a residential one would kill everything.
Imma keep stacking my silver.
With 10k gold pieces you just buy the dungeon. The running median house price over the history of the US is about 100 gold ounces..