We have to get to the bottom of this... - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15228524
ckaihatsu wrote:
You make 'private commercial bank licenses' sound like a royal-favoritist *christening*, resulting from dramatic governmental *palace intrigues* and the goings-on of bureaucratic nobility.



Truth To Power wrote:
No I don't. It doesn't matter how they are granted. As it happens, they are only granted to people who are rich enough to put millions of dollars of their own money into the bank's capital.



So then why the bristling -- ? Isn't that just normal everyday banking?


ckaihatsu wrote:
Are you sure that such licenses *aren't* approved based on a standard business-regulatory framework, like anything else?



Truth To Power wrote:
I'm sure there is a framework. I am also sure that whatever that framework is, the privilege of a bank license is -- almost literally -- a license to print money.



Are you a monetarist, or *aren't* you -- ?

You've railed against *rentier* capital privileges, but the direction of greater economic productivity would require *more liquidity*, not stronger currency valuations.

So which economic faction of capitalism are you for, really -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're dramatizing things in the direction of stoking resentment against the bourgeoisie's *own* ruling apparatus, the nation-state.



Truth To Power wrote:
AFAIK there is no necessary relationship between nation-states and debt-money banking.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Does finance / debt really only pour-forth from the graciousness of 'big-gubmint', and only to 'winners', and not-me, or is it *really* more a function of capitalism *itself*, like debt-to-GDP ratios -- (!)



Truth To Power wrote:
Debt-to-GDP ratios are not a function of capitalism simpliciter, though they are of modern finance (debt-money) capitalism.



Well, is debt and finance to be considered as 'legitimate', 'valid' capitalism, or isn't it -- ?

Would you really call for a 'no-debt' kind of capitalism, on political principle -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
If finance is so governmentally 'privileged', then wouldn't that make your 'ownership of producer goods in a production system' to *also* be 'privileged', since much equity capital / market capitalization, is *itself* based on debt-based / leveraged *financing* -- (!)



Truth To Power wrote:
No, because it is the bank that gets income via privilege rather than production, not the borrower. Duh.



So now you're directing your ire towards *banks*, as well as deficit-spending / money-printing government -- ?

I think you need to get a grip, no offense -- does capitalism allow for *debt* / finance, or doesn't it -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
These touted capitalist / entrepreneurial 'angels', relieving scarcity everywhere they gaze, have most-likely provided *leveraged equity* / *debt*, which refers back to capitalist-financial-benchmarks, or the everyday pedestrian rule-of-capital, and *not* big-gubmint as a cartoonish villain.



Truth To Power wrote:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it sounds disingenuous and deceitful.



I'll rephrase -- since government is able to issue debt, and does, all of that liquidity will inevitably be *in circulation*, and used for corporate finance.

Any comment on the following -- ?



The shadow banking system is a term for the collection of non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but outside normal banking regulations.[1] Examples of NBFIs include insurance firms, pawn shops, cashier's check issuers, check cashing locations, payday lending, currency exchanges, and microloan organizations.[2][3] The phrase "shadow banking" is regarded by some as pejorative, and the term "market-based finance" has been proposed as an alternative.[4]

Former US Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke provided the following definition in November 2013:

"Shadow banking, as usually defined, comprises a diverse set of institutions and markets that, collectively, carry out traditional banking functions—but do so outside, or in ways only loosely linked to, the traditional system of regulated depository institutions. Examples of important components of the shadow banking system include securitization vehicles, asset-backed commercial paper [ABCP] conduits, money market funds, markets for repurchase agreements, investment banks, and mortgage companies"[5]

Shadow banking has grown in importance to rival traditional depository banking, and was a factor in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–2008 and the global recession that followed.[6][7][8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So you gotta puff out the chest a little, and own-up to the *rainy* days, as well as the sunny ones, regarding capitalism.



Truth To Power wrote:
You persist in falsely claiming that I advocate, praise, or defend capitalism. I do not. I am merely aware of the fact that socialism is even worse.



Whatever. You mean *Stalinism*, so go right-ahead -- be my guest, and rail-away against bureaucratic elitism.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image
#15228750
ckaihatsu wrote:So then why the bristling -- ? Isn't that just normal everyday banking?

Sure. Just like landowner parasitism is normal everyday rent seeking.
Are you a monetarist, or *aren't* you -- ?

No.
You've railed against *rentier* capital privileges, but the direction of greater economic productivity would require *more liquidity*, not stronger currency valuations.

No idea how you think that is relevant. Liquidity should come with production.
So which economic faction of capitalism are you for, really -- ?

I'm for the productive in any system, which is why I advocate geoism rather than capitalism or socialism. Capitalism robs the productive for the profit of the privileged; socialism robs them out of envy and resentment.
Well, is debt and finance to be considered as 'legitimate', 'valid' capitalism, or isn't it -- ?

Classical -- industrial -- capitalism was not highly financialized because debt-money banking was not so preponderant. Debt money is not part of the definition of capitalism, but it does facilitate asset market liquidity, so maybe it and finance capitalism are a natural development.
Would you really call for a 'no-debt' kind of capitalism, on political principle -- ?

I don't call for capitalism at all, as you know but always pretend not to. Capitalism almost requires debt money because it's a good way to maintain market liquidity and get assets into more productive hands. Debt money increases growth but also instability. Overall, I'd prefer lower debt levels, and of course a geoist economy would not require any significant level of debt.
So now you're directing your ire towards *banks*, as well as deficit-spending / money-printing government -- ?

Bank licenses are an important form of privilege in a debt-money system, but they don't have the broad destructive impact of landowner privilege. I haven't said anything against government issuance of money, that's just another opinion you have falsely attributed to me.
I think you need to get a grip, no offense -- does capitalism allow for *debt* / finance, or doesn't it -- ?

Of course it does, and debt money links the capitalist system even more tightly to landowner privilege: that's what people borrow for.
I'll rephrase -- since government is able to issue debt, and does, all of that liquidity will inevitably be *in circulation*, and used for corporate finance.

Governments have tended to issue far more debt than they should and could have. The main purpose seems to be to provide interest income to banks and the rich in return for no contribution to production. I'd prefer to see governments issuing debt- and interest-free fiat money rather than private commercial banks issuing debt money. Debt money is inherently destabilizing as well as unjust.
Any comment on the following -- ?

Not really. Shadow banking just means greedy folks who don't have bank licenses want to participate in the debt money scam anyway.
Whatever. You mean *Stalinism*, so go right-ahead -- be my guest, and rail-away against bureaucratic elitism.

I mean socialism, and I have explained why.
#15228781
@Truth To Power, and @ckaihatsu,

TLDR.

Do you 2 guys think you are going to convince the other? If you do, you don't grok the internet.

Do you 2 guys think you are convincing the Lurkers? If you do, I think you are wrong. I think this because I can't follow you discussion. And, I just assume that if I can't then few can follow it.

Let me just say a few things.
1] Are banking licenses being issued today? I doubt it. What has been happening for decides is banking licenses are being destroyed as the huge banks buy up most of the smaller banks. So, it doesn't matter how the Gov. decides to issue a banking license, because it isn't issuing many and AFAIK hasn't for decades.
2] According the MMTers, all currencies through all time were and are issued by nation states, like Imperial Rome.
3] I have no idea what anyone means when they use words like 'socialism'. The definitions are totally politized. Nobody seems to stay with the technical definitions I learned 50 years ago. Socialism then meant 'an economic system in which the gov. owns and manages most large factories and mines (and maybe RR). Somethings, like roads, seem to be socialized in most nations.
4] I have no idea what is the main point you 2 are arguing about.
5] A big part of all economic discussions is that today economics is dominated by religious like thinking. That is, there are a few systems of economics and people believe 1 of them as if it is a religion. That just like religion, proof of the truth of your chosen econ. system is lacking. So, everyone just believes on faith.
. . . Take current Neo-liberalism for example. It is proven by deductive logic, right? And, all systems of deductive logic must start from a list of assumptions [like Euclid's Plane Geometry did], right? However, deductive logic has a set of formal rules, and the 1st rule is that even one false assumption that is in a chain of proofs makes the rest of the chain useless. It follows that Neo-liberalism is a religion because it makes many assumptions that other sciences say are false [like all players are just selfish in the extreme and don't care about the welfare of any others], or that anyone can see are false [like all players in the market know everything about the stuff they are buying or selling]. Another false assumption here is that banks are like pawnbrokers and lend the money that their depositors have deposited. You 2 seem to agree that banks have a license to print money from the Gov/Fed, so you are ahead of the game. However, I caution you that, other things you believe in economics may be based on the banks are pawnbrokers assumption, and so are not really proven.
This is enough.
.
#15229271
Steve_American wrote:
@Truth To Power, and @ckaihatsu,

TLDR.

Do you 2 guys think you are going to convince the other? If you do, you don't grok the internet.

Do you 2 guys think you are convincing the Lurkers? If you do, I think you are wrong. I think this because I can't follow you discussion. And, I just assume that if I can't then few can follow it.

Let me just say a few things.
1] Are banking licenses being issued today? I doubt it. What has been happening for decides is banking licenses are being destroyed as the huge banks buy up most of the smaller banks. So, it doesn't matter how the Gov. decides to issue a banking license, because it isn't issuing many and AFAIK hasn't for decades.
2] According the MMTers, all currencies through all time were and are issued by nation states, like Imperial Rome.
3] I have no idea what anyone means when they use words like 'socialism'. The definitions are totally politized. Nobody seems to stay with the technical definitions I learned 50 years ago. Socialism then meant 'an economic system in which the gov. owns and manages most large factories and mines (and maybe RR). Somethings, like roads, seem to be socialized in most nations.
4] I have no idea what is the main point you 2 are arguing about.
5] A big part of all economic discussions is that today economics is dominated by religious like thinking. That is, there are a few systems of economics and people believe 1 of them as if it is a religion. That just like religion, proof of the truth of your chosen econ. system is lacking. So, everyone just believes on faith.
. . . Take current Neo-liberalism for example. It is proven by deductive logic, right? And, all systems of deductive logic must start from a list of assumptions [like Euclid's Plane Geometry did], right? However, deductive logic has a set of formal rules, and the 1st rule is that even one false assumption that is in a chain of proofs makes the rest of the chain useless. It follows that Neo-liberalism is a religion because it makes many assumptions that other sciences say are false [like all players are just selfish in the extreme and don't care about the welfare of any others], or that anyone can see are false [like all players in the market know everything about the stuff they are buying or selling]. Another false assumption here is that banks are like pawnbrokers and lend the money that their depositors have deposited. You 2 seem to agree that banks have a license to print money from the Gov/Fed, so you are ahead of the game. However, I caution you that, other things you believe in economics may be based on the banks are pawnbrokers assumption, and so are not really proven.
This is enough.
.



Thanks for the shout-out, Steve.

TTP sees all economics and power as being reducible to *land* only, and I've been attempting to extend 'dispossession' to *wage work*, and its economic exploitation of the worker, as well.

TTP doesn't recognize equity values / employment as being *exploitative* of the wage worker.

I'll be catching-up as I have the time to do so, but at this point there's more heat-than-light from the discussion, due to redundancy.

I was going to argue next that capitalism inherently runs into *liquidity* crises -- like now -- because its overproductivity (of commodities and capital goods) inevitably causes an *overhang* of produced commodities, compared to the available money supply of face-values, and proponents of capitalism have to then scramble to find a socially-acceptable *vessel* that can elastically accommodate / financially-label all of those commodity values produced (as from China, etc.) -- to avoid rampant *deflation* and a seizing-up of the regular economy (as with West Coast supply chains / shipping).

Here's a snapshot of what I'm talking about, from another thread:


Wulfschilde wrote:
I'm 50% in commodities and 50% in low ball oil puts. I should probably keep more plain cash in reserve. Even that is not safe though because of the inflation devaluing your cash, so there is apparently nothing safe at the moment.



viewtopic.php?p=15228128#p15228128
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Russians lost around 8k dead and 25k-30k wounded f[…]

The tying of health care provision to a job, sign[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Late term abortions can be difficult to access, es[…]

Monkeypox:

AIDS also spread first in this group... https&#[…]