Occupy movement- remember them??

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A not for profit, public-interest driven financial system...

...according to whose definition of the public interest?

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A not for profit, public-interest driven financial system whose sole purpose is to ensure maximum trade potential and nothing else. Issue new currency without interest attached, etc. I've written about all of this in more detail in older threads, I'm merely pointing out that the system of money and debt that we use only has value because we all agree to assign value to it - we could easily choose to assign value to a completely different system if we wanted to. The current system is designed to benefit a very small elite, and the only reason it's still being used is because it's not talked about enough, in my view.

If more people realized just how currency is created and brought into circulation, I'd imagine more people would be interested in scrapping that system and redesigning it. That's what the creators of Bitcoin were after - not in any way saying they've got it right, but the basic concept of a currency that isn't controlled by vested interest is something I'm glad to see entering the mainstream.

When Occupy Dame Street was around, by far the most interesting lecture given at it was about Guernsey and the fact that they seem to have stopped using the interest-bearing-debt model of issuing new money in the early 20th century and they haven't had a serious banking crisis since.

Again I don't have all the answers, but the purpose initially is to at least get people talking about it, instead of simply accepting the status quo we've all been conditioned to accept and not to question.

Carte blanche for robbers and thieves. Might as well look for an alternative to gravity!

nesf

oscarBravo wrote: »

...according to whose definition of the public interest?

The mobs?

Jonny7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When Occupy Dame Street was around, by far the most interesting lecture given at it was about Guernsey and the fact that they seem to have stopped using the interest-bearing-debt model of issuing new money in the early 20th century and they haven't had a serious banking crisis since.

An island tax haven where a third of the pop is employed servicing the current banking system - not the best example

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

The mobs?

*up twinkles*

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

Carte blanche for robbers and thieves. Might as well look for an alternative to gravity!

Let me just ask something here: Why specifically should newly created money be owed back with interest? The concept is bizarre - the only way to ever pay it back is if somebody takes out a new loan which requires even more interest. This basically means that the only way you avoid a financial crisis is if nobody ever decides to save money over time, because as soon as they do that, there's some money which went out from the central bank but won't be going back.

Is it not obvious how daft that system is? It is, to use my previous analogy, like a game of musical chairs which requires the music to play constantly. Any hiccup in the record and everyone will dive for the chairs, which of course there aren't enough of.
Why can't we design a monetary system which does have enough chairs so that we don't require perpetual growth and increasing output over time? Surely a more sensible model would get output to a level at which society's needs in terms of production and demand are catered for, but without requiring growth beyond what's actually demanded?

I have never understood how there could possibly be any common sense in the system we use and I never will, tbh. No one has ever actually managed to produce a decent explanation of why a perpetual debt based, interest bearing system of money creation is actually good for society. Who benefits from it, apart from people who are in charge of the financial sector?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me just ask something here: Why specifically should newly created money be owed back with interest? The concept is bizarre - the only way to ever pay it back is if somebody takes out a new loan which requires even more interest. This basically means that the only way you avoid a financial crisis is if nobody ever decides to save money over time, because as soon as they do that, there's some money which went out from the central bank but won't be going back.

In one word Inflation

In finance its called "the time value of money" or more simply €100 today will buy more than the same €100 in a years time due to primarily inflation. If inflation is 2% that €100 today, next year after accounting for inflation it'll only be worth €98 in today's money. Hence a person makes a loss over the year.

If a person has a loan over a 30 year life span or any number of years the capital payment near the end of will cost less in today's money. Ultimately the interest is compensate the lender for this and ensure their money back at its "present value". And it goes for everyone who lends money to banks i.e. depositors, bondholders etc and the banks when they lend money. Banks will normally charge a higher interest rate on loans than they give out in deposits. This is to cover the costs of running the bank employees, buildings etc and enable them to make a profit.

It should be noted high levels of inflation encourage spending as money loses it value relatively quickly while low levels encourage saving as the opposite happens. Hence high levels of inflation suits borrowers but hurts savers and the opposite is the case.

The above points also ignore the opportunity cost of what a person/bank/company could do with the money if the didn't lend it. Something they also must be compensated for. This is what the profit is for.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let me just ask something here: Why specifically should newly created money be owed back with interest? The concept is bizarre - the only way to ever pay it back is if somebody takes out a new loan which requires even more interest. This basically means that the only way you avoid a financial crisis is if nobody ever decides to save money over time, because as soon as they do that, there's some money which went out from the central bank but won't be going back.

Is it not obvious how daft that system is? It is, to use my previous analogy, like a game of musical chairs which requires the music to play constantly. Any hiccup in the record and everyone will dive for the chairs, which of course there aren't enough of.
Why can't we design a monetary system which does have enough chairs so that we don't require perpetual growth and increasing output over time? Surely a more sensible model would get output to a level at which society's needs in terms of production and demand are catered for, but without requiring growth beyond what's actually demanded?

I have never understood how there could possibly be any common sense in the system we use and I never will, tbh. No one has ever actually managed to produce a decent explanation of why a perpetual debt based, interest bearing system of money creation is actually good for society. Who benefits from it, apart from people who are in charge of the financial sector?

Peader has explained the matter above. I suggest you thank him rather than argue with him.

If money supply is not limited it has no value and thus does not fulfill it's function as a medium of exchange. Money can be given by one person to another (a capital transaction) or lent at interest (a rental transaction).

You're very confused. Compare it with property - another asset which can be bought/sold or rented. Effectively you're saying if you have a vacant property give it to someone/anyone rent free!!

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

In one word Inflation

In finance its called "the time value of money" or more simply €100 today will buy more than the same €100 in a years time due to primarily inflation. If inflation is 2% that €100 today, next year after accounting for inflation it'll only be worth €98 in today's money. Hence a person makes a loss over the year.

If a person has a loan over a 30 year life span or any number of years the capital payment near the end of will cost less in today's money. Ultimately the interest is compensate the lender for this and ensure their money back at its "present value". And it goes for everyone who lends money to banks i.e. depositors, bondholders etc and the banks when they lend money. Banks will normally charge a higher interest rate on loans than they give out in deposits. This is to cover the costs of running the bank employees, buildings etc and enable them to make a profit.

It should be noted high levels of inflation encourage spending as money loses it value relatively quickly while low levels encourage saving as the opposite happens. Hence high levels of inflation suits borrowers but hurts savers and the opposite is the case.

The above points also ignore the opportunity cost of what a person/bank/company could do with the money if the didn't lend it. Something they also must be compensated for. This is what the profit is for.

It strikes me that in this case you're talking about private banks with interest bearing loans - this isn't something I have a problem with, what I was referring to was the central bank, which uses the issuing of loans to create new money and bring it into circulation.

So in that scenario, when we're purely talking about the central bank and the monetary policy involved, why should that money have interest attached to it?

Again, if the total amount of money owed back to the central bank always exceeds the amount in circulation, thereby requiring a perpetual debt cycle, how is this beneficial to society? I would argue that this would cause inflation - if I set up a business for €100 but I owe €110 back, I'm going to have to get that €10 from somewhere and logically it can only originate from the central bank, where it too will be owed back with some degree of interest, thereby requiring someone else at some point to take out another interest bearing loan in order for that money to ever get paid back.

Unless I'm missing something, this creates a never-ending cycle of debt from which escape is mathematically impossible.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It strikes me that in this case you're talking about private banks with interest bearing loans - this isn't something I have a problem with, what I was referring to was the central bank, which uses the issuing of loans to create new money and bring it into circulation.

So in that scenario, when we're purely talking about the central bank and the monetary policy involved, why should that money have interest attached to it?

Again, if the total amount of money owed back to the central bank always exceeds the amount in circulation, thereby requiring a perpetual debt cycle, how is this beneficial to society? I would argue that this would cause inflation - if I set up a business for €100 but I owe €110 back, I'm going to have to get that €10 from somewhere and logically it can only originate from the central bank, where it too will be owed back with some degree of interest, thereby requiring someone else at some point to take out another interest bearing loan in order for that money to ever get paid back.

Unless I'm missing something, this creates a never-ending cycle of debt from which escape is mathematically impossible.

The extra 10 euro comes from fractional reserve banking. At it simplest the Central Bank mandates banks keep say 10% reserves. So if a bank gets 100 it can only lend €90. That €90 can go to person A who then buys goods worth €90 from person B. Person B puts that €90 into the bank. The bank then can lend out €81 and so on.

That above is Fractional reserve banking in its simplest form probably overly simplified. In the real world there are more than 3 participants. It also ignores that the money supply is not stable with new money being destroyed (whether by actions of the central bank or bank notes being burnt in fire etc) and being created by the Central Bank. It also ignores the actual value of any currency is always in flux when compared to other currencies or gold, silver etc.

Does it require a significant amount of trust that banks will always pay out yes, Hence the reason the banks were bailed out. Had the banks and the economy been managed properly it could have been avoided.

Is it perfect no but no human system is. Which something people like Occupy don't realise.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

The extra 10 euro comes from fractional reserve banking. At it simplest the Central Bank mandates banks keep say 10% reserves. So if a bank gets 100 it can only lend €90. That €90 can go to person A who then buys goods worth €90 from person B. Person B puts that €90 into the bank. The bank then can lend out €81 and so on.

That above is Fractional reserve banking in its simplest form probably overly simplified. In the real world there are more than 3 participants. It also ignores that the money supply is not stable with new money being destroyed (whether by actions of the central bank or bank notes being burnt in fire etc) and being created by the Central Bank. It also ignores the actual value of any currency is always in flux when compared to other currencies or gold, silver etc.

Does it require a significant amount of trust that banks will always pay out yes, Hence the reason the banks were bailed out. Had the banks and the economy been managed properly it could have been avoided.

Is it perfect no but no human system is. Which something people like Occupy don't realise.

Ok, but again, since the central bank isn't out to make a profit but to simply facilitate the economic system, what would happen if the central bank issued interest-free money to private banks?
All I'm trying to get at here is that these systems are designed by humans for humans, and are not set in stone. If they're not working for us (which they're not), we should at least discuss the idea of changing to different systems entirely. It seems to me that fractional reserve banking as you describe it has been at the root of many financial crises owing to the musical chairs analogy I described earlier - is it really so outrageous to suggest that this system be replaced?

Any system which has been in place for decades without any serious changes to its inner workings is probably out of date.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, but again, since the central bank isn't out to make a profit but to simply facilitate the economic system, what would happen if the central bank issued interest-free money to private banks?
All I'm trying to get at here is that these systems are designed by humans for humans, and are not set in stone. If they're not working for us (which they're not), we should at least discuss the idea of changing to different systems entirely. It seems to me that fractional reserve banking as you describe it has been at the root of many financial crises owing to the musical chairs analogy I described earlier - is it really so outrageous to suggest that this system be replaced?

Any system which has been in place for decades without any serious changes to its inner workings is probably out of date.

What would happen if rates were at 0%? Depends on the state of the economy, the interest rate before the move, government policies, action of other governments, state of banks etc. The fact that your caught up with a certain % says how little you've understood my posts. I should also point out that the ECB interest rate is practically 0 as it is if that helps answer your question.

Not a simple answer but the question isn't simple when you get down into the details.

Also you describe any process as musical chairs if one element doesn't work the whole thing falls apart so it isn't unique to the monetary system. There were options to negate the current situation but people between 2002-2008 chose to vote for politicians who they wanted to fuel the bubble which caused the crisis. No matter what system you use it'll break if people want it to.

You describe the system as unchanging while ignoring the move to floating exchange rate, Bretton Woods Agreement and Gold Standard. All changes in the last 80 years or so. And they're only the big/major changes. It ignores a whole host of relatively smaller agreements and changes.

If you plan to replace the current system why and what would replace it? Some advice would be to learn how the current system works and its strengths and weaknesses before you try replace it. What I've given in my posts is the very basics. Someone with more knowledge in the area could give you more detailed information if you have the time to read/listen.

The reason Occupy failed is that for all the issues with our current system they failed to properly articulate a better way and had a very poor understanding of the issues they were talking about.

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It strikes me that in this case you're talking about private banks with interest bearing loans - this isn't something I have a problem with, what I was referring to was the central bank, which uses the issuing of loans to create new money and bring it into circulation.

So in that scenario, when we're purely talking about the central bank and the monetary policy involved, why should that money have interest attached to it?

Stop for a second and think about this.

A: Central bank lends out 100 billion for a year at 5% annual interest. (totally made up figures)

B: Central bank gets back 105 billion at the end of the year from the banks.



Explain to me how there is more money in the economy (only) because of the central bank's action after position B compared to before position A.


The central bank doesn't give out interest free loans because it would much rather that banks got their loans from each other or the private markets. So normally the interest rate the central bank is charging is above the "going rate" and is not an option that any well functioning bank would take outside of a crisis period. If the central bank gave out interest free loans then no bank would ever borrow from anyone else and we'd have very serious inflation problems down the line.

Godge

PeadarCo wrote: »

The reason Occupy failed is that for all the issues with our current system they failed to properly articulate a better way and had a very poor understanding of the issues they were talking about.

Excellent summary

20Cent

Yet two years later its still talked about and active.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Yet two years later its still talked about and active.

Except it's not.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it's not.

Read the op of this thread?

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Read the op of this thread?

That's in America, the movement has died here.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's in America, the movement has died here.

Threads about America.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Threads about America.

Except it's not. Why do you subscribe to these guys anyway? You never explained.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except it's not. Why do you subscribe to these guys anyway? You never explained.

Op and thread is about the US. Thats what being discussed obviously its still active , not sure what you are on about.

Just anti BS. Posts saying they haven't achieved anything despite evidence to the contrary.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Op and thread is about the US. Thats what being discussed obviously its still active , not sure what you are on about.

Just anti BS. Posts saying they haven't achieved anything despite evidence to the contrary.

Just so long as we both agree they're no longer active in Ireland.

That didn't answer my question. Why do you support these guys?

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just so long as we both agree they're no longer active in Ireland.

That didn't answer my question. Why do you support these guys?

Its still going on Facebook and twitter in Ireland still the odd meeting, marchs etc

Think its a great movement achieved a lot.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Its still going on Facebook and twitter in Ireland still the odd meeting, marchs etc

Think its a great movement achieved a lot.

That they achieved a lot (a debatable statement in itself) isn't a reason to support them. Why do you support them? What policies of theirs do you agree with?

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That they achieved a lot (a debatable statement in itself) isn't a reason to support them. Why do you support them? What policies of theirs do you agree with?

Going a bit off topic there dude threads not about me!

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Going a bit off topic there dude threads not about me!

It's about the Occupy movement. Why do you support them? Would you describe yourself as communist?

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's about the Occupy movement. Why do you support them? Would you describe yourself as communist?

Have you seen the documentary "Inside Job"?
Sums up a lot of the issues there pretty well.
Occupy went about doing something about it and have been very successful.

Do I consider myself a communist!!! ffs
Em no.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Have you seen the documentary "Inside Job"?
Sums up a lot of the issues there pretty well.
Occupy went about doing something about it and have been very successful.

What have they done? What changes to the system have they inspired? Note systematic changes. A few housing bonds here and there isn't going to bring down the market.

20Cent wrote: »

Do I consider myself a communist!!! ffs
Em no.

Yet looking through their facebook page the movement is clearly Marxist. You support a Marxist movement.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What have they done? What changes to the system have they inspired? Note systematic changes. A few housing bonds here and there isn't going to bring down the market.


Yet looking through their facebook page the movement is clearly Marxist. You support a Marxist movement.

Who wants to "bring down the market"?
Numerous examples in this thread of changes they influenced.

Clearly marxist!
I suspect you're the type who think kids sharing their lunches is marxist.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Who wants to "bring down the market"?
Numerous examples in this thread of changes they influenced.

Clearly marxist!
I suspect you're the type who think kids sharing their lunches is marxist.

I don't think you understand what Marxism is. If you did you wouldn't doubt for a second the movement is Marxist. Ignorance can be a dangerous thing when it comes to Socialism.

If you aren't communist then why support a Marxist movement?

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think you understand what Marxism is. If you did you wouldn't doubt for a second the movement is Marxist. Ignorance can be a dangerous thing when it comes to Socialism.

If you aren't communist then why support a Marxist movement?

Tell me their marxist policies so.

Libertarians also support occupy does that make it libertarian?

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Tell me their marxist policies so.

Libertarians also support occupy does that make it libertarian?

Occupy don't have policies. On the other hand Marx believed capitalism would be overthrown and replaced with socialism through a violent uprising by the working/lower middle class urbanites in developed capitalist countries. He believed this transition was inevitable but gave no time line. Socialism would only be introduced when technology has made the concept of wealth inequality obsolete.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Occupy don't have policies. On the other hand Marx believed capitalism would be overthrown and replaced with socialism through a violent uprising by the working/lower middle class urbanites in developed capitalist countries. He believed this transition was inevitable but gave no time line. Socialism would only be introduced when technology has made the concept of wealth inequality obsolete.

Interesting yet nothing to do with occupy. What they doing that you think makes them marxist?

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Interesting yet nothing to do with occupy. What they doing that you think makes them marxist?

Well Watson the red banners, pictures of Marx and talk of revolution on their facebook page was my first clue. What few policies they have is my second.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well Watson the red banners, pictures of Marx and talk of revolution on their facebook page was my first clue. What few policies they have is my second.

Lots of libertarians taking part does that make it libertarian?
Revolution, wasn't that ron pauls slogan? No need to take everything literally. Persil was a revolution in washing powders.

What specifically have they done that makes you think its marxist?


Ps the little digs aren't helpful.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Lots of libertarians taking part does that make it libertarian?
Revolution, wasn't that ron pauls slogan? No need to take everything literally. Persil was a revolution in washing powders.

What specifically have they done that makes you think its marxist?


Ps the little digs aren't helpful.

What specifically have they done? Nothing. They haven't specifically done anything.that's the point.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What specifically have they done? Nothing. They haven't specifically done anything.that's the point.

15 million in health related debt wiped out for one thing.

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

15 million in health related debt wiped out for one thing.

That's nothing. It's not a systematic change.

20Cent

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's nothing. It's not a systematic change.

Occupy said the markets were rigged to enrich a small few. Read the papers today?

Larry Summers was going to be made head of the fed but dropped out because he would be too controversial and a more dovish candidate selected.
Income inequality is the number one issue with young people in the US now for the first time ever.
Etc etc

It's like the monty python what have the romans done for us sketch now.

20Cent

Double post

Iwasfrozen

20Cent wrote: »

Occupy said the markets were rigged to enrich a small few. Read the papers today?

Larry Summers was going to be made head of the fed but dropped out because he would be too controversial and a more dovish candidate selected.
Income inequality is the number one issue with young people in the US now for the first time ever.
Etc etc

It's like the monty python what have the romans done for us sketch now.

That had nothing to do with Occupy. I've read up on Janet Yellen because I'd honestly never heard of her before but I don't like her relaxed attitude towards inflation one bit. Inflation causes prices to rise which is usually not matched in an increase in wages. Meaning more people will be employed but they'll be earning less.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Yet two years later its still talked about and active.

Active?

20Cent wrote: »

Its still going on Facebook and twitter in Ireland still the odd meeting, marchs etc

Think its a great movement achieved a lot.

Hardly.

This thread actually reads more like a memorial service than anything else.

Very few people seem to remember Occupy. I asked a few colleagues about them. The conversations kind of went like this.

"Weren't they the hippies outside the Central Bank?" "That place smelled near the end" "What did they want?" "Can't remember really" "Something about the bailout"

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

Occupy said the markets were rigged to enrich a small few.

Which is on the same cerebral level as saying "horse races are rigged to enrich a small few" because several horse races have been rigged

Then going out and protesting horse races

It's on that level of idiocy

20Cent

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which is on the same cerebral level as saying "horse races are rigged to enrich a small few" because several horse races have been rigged

Then going out and protesting horse races

It's on that level of idiocy

Not really.
Been reading about libor in the UK and jp morgan etc in the US.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Active?



Hardly.

This thread actually reads more like a memorial service than anything else.

Very few people seem to remember Occupy. I asked a few colleagues about them. The conversations kind of went like this.

"Weren't they the hippies outside the Central Bank?" "That place smelled near the end" "What did they want?" "Can't remember really" "Something about the bailout"

Did you read the op? Looks active to me. Thread is about the occupy movement in the US and in general. Your straw poll of colleagues isn't really relevant.

20Cent

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which is on the same cerebral level as saying "horse races are rigged to enrich a small few" because several horse races have been rigged

Then going out and protesting horse races

It's on that level of idiocy

Not really.
Been reading about libor in the UK and jp morgan etc in the US.

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

Not really.
Been reading about libor in the UK and jp morgan etc in the US.

It's exactly the same analogy with the same common denominator

The fact that you are reading about it is testament to the fact that financial regulators are trying to stop these market practices/rigging/collusion

With the new regulations and measures being implemented no one can predict what loopholes we'll find in 10 years - but we are much more unlikely to repeat the same mistakes that triggered the '08 crash

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Did you read the op? Looks active to me. Thread is about the occupy movement in the US and in general. Your straw poll of colleagues isn't really relevant.

There were four or five threads about Occupy on the go here when they started. Now, apart from this dying thread, there is nothing.

Occupy made the news every day while they had their five minutes of fame but who knows and who cares now, that is what my straw poll of colleagues shows.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

There were four or five threads about Occupy on the go here when they started. Now, apart from this dying thread, there is nothing.

Occupy made the news every day while they had their five minutes of fame but who knows and who cares now, that is what my straw poll of colleagues shows.

Not talking about threads on boards ffs.
The groups are still active it made all the newspapers with the debt buy just a few weeks ago. Saying its not still active is patently untrue.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

The groups are still active it made all the newspapers with the debt buy just a few weeks ago. Saying its not still active is patently untrue.

Read my post again.

Godge wrote: »

Occupy made the news every day while they had their five minutes of fame but who knows and who cares now, that is what my straw poll of colleagues shows.

Two articles, one of which is reuters, does not make the group still active.

The are volcanoes dormant for hundreds of years who get more publicity.