The Issue of Homelessness

[vonbach]

I am pretty sure that in modern times taxes are justified by appeal to societal benefit and services, not by "the government owns your land and you're just renting it".

Property taxes aren't supposed to exist at all. They are unconstitutional.
We actually pay more in taxes than a medieval peasant did. They only paid about a third of their income.

I'm pretty sure that the banking system is not why companies are willing to only hire a certain number of people and not more.

Usury banking systems degrade the value of money over time. Meaning the longer the system stays in place the less your money its worth. So the economy suffers and the people suffer with it. Basically its a system of economic slavery and its expressly forbidden in the Bible. It causes the problems we see every day. In the 50's you could buy a house for cash. Try that now.

[Yitzi]

I am pretty sure that in modern times taxes are justified by appeal to societal benefit and services, not by "the government owns your land and you're just renting it".

Property taxes aren't supposed to exist at all. They are unconstitutional.

Well, that's only the case for federal property taxes, and only when they fail to be covered by Congress' right to tax (e.g. because they are not uniform).  Determining the details is a job for an intellectually honest Supreme Court.

We actually pay more in taxes than a medieval peasant did. They only paid about a third of their income.

Yeah, some of that is due to duplication over the multiple levels of government (local, state, and federal), and much is because under the medieval system the lord had to pay for military expenditures largely from his own land IIRC while the government has little land of its own to pay for military expenditures.  There's also social security, which they didn't have, and medical care for the poor and elderly was both less expensive then (mainly due to less options) and probably paid for more by religious institutions.

I'm pretty sure that the banking system is not why companies are willing to only hire a certain number of people and not more.

Usury banking systems degrade the value of money over time. Meaning the longer the system stays in place the less your money its worth.

How so?  Inflation degrades the value of money over time, but that's not intrinsically linked to the banking system.

and its expressly forbidden in the Bible.

Only from one Israelite to another...which suggests that it's an extra kindness that Israelites are supposed to do for each other to lend without interest, and not an actual logical or moral mandate.

It causes the problems we see every day. In the 50's you could buy a house for cash. Try that now.

The prices of houses have gone up even compensating for the degraded value of money over time; the reason for that probably has to do with the fact that technology has been less effective at reducing the price of housing than most other things.

[vonbach]

How so?  Inflation degrades the value of money over time, but that's not intrinsically linked to the banking system.

Of course it is the fed reserve issues money at interest. Our banking system is essentially a ponzi scheme.
The money becomes worth less and less until it is worth nearly nothing and the economy collapses.
Thats why the founding fathers fought for our colonial script. They treated money like a public utility
instead of a way to enslave the entire population with debt. As a result they didn't have the problems that were
in England.

[Yitzi]

How so?  Inflation degrades the value of money over time, but that's not intrinsically linked to the banking system.

Of course it is the fed reserve issues money at interest.

But that's really on top of the banking system, rather than in addition to it; if the federal reserve did nothing and the banks issued depositors' money at interest, that state of affairs would not cause inflation once it was in place (starting is a different matter, but it's already started).

Our banking system is essentially a ponzi scheme.

Only to the extent that any form of currency is.

The money becomes worth less and less until it is worth nearly nothing and the economy collapses.

The only way money is becoming worth less is when there's more of it to go around, and that won't make the economy collapse unless it happens really fast (which it isn't).

Thats why the founding fathers fought for our colonial script. They treated money like a public utility
instead of a way to enslave the entire population with debt. As a result they didn't have the problems in
England.

The problems in England you're describing, were, if I'm reading things correctly, due to having not only a banking system, but one that could create unlimited amounts of money out of nowhere, and it being the only one that could do so.  The modern banking system has limits on how much money it can lend out, and no single bank or group of banks has exclusive right to do so.  (Even the special status of federal reserve banks is based on getting newly printed money, not on how much it can lend.)

People borrowing beyond their means and being enslaved with debt is a problem...but has nothing to do with reduced value of money over time, and little to do with unemployment or homelessness.

[vonbach]

The only way money is becoming worth less is when there's more of it to go around, and that won't make the economy collapse unless it happens really fast (which it isn't).

The problem is everytime you loan out money at interest it degrades. Theres no way around this.
This is why our purchasing power is so much less than say 40 years ago. Here have an article.

Usury is the original sin and the root cause of all our economic and political problems.

The truth is we have everything we need to create an interest-free money supply. An usury-free economy ends poverty and saves our souls in the process.

The love of money is the root of all evils. Usury is the weaponization of money love. It feeds the avarice of the usurer. It forces ever more debtors into ever more immoral behavior. It replaces love with commerce. It corrupts commerce, which becomes ever more exploitative. It rips apart the fabric of society and makes a mockery of any kind of social contract.

Billions of people live in abject poverty all over the world because of it. Entire communities, nations are gutted to pay the interest to the opulent. Nobody counts the billions dying prematurely from its effects.

Poor countries pay ten times more interest on their foreign debts than they receive development aid.

Even when not in debt, forty percent of our income is lost to interest passed on in prices by producers. The many pay anywhere between five and ten trillion per year to the wealthy. All other rents ultimately are based on cost for capital and would hardly exist without usury.

<It is the ultimate centralizer of power and it is global. It has been growing at a compound interest rate for centuries, and now this incredible cancer is ready to devour the host body.

The European nations put up $4.5 trillion in handouts, easy credit and guarantees to 'save' their banks and the euro. The Fed provided an unimaginable $16 trillion dollars in easy credit to its banking buddies. Much of it was never repaid. This is 'necessary' because without banks we would not have money. So the West put up $20 trillion to have some bits and bytes and paper and coins circulate to exchange goods and services.

Surely the end of our civilization is near when we allow such rapacious plunder while there is no money to save the poor from starvation and the Earth from pollution.

SENSELESS

We think: "without interest there will be no credit! I would not lend if I didn't get anything back."

But the Money Power doesn't lend anything!

Money is just bookkeeping and credit is an automatic result of double entry bookkeeping, which by its very nature knows debit and credit.

The problem is not the creation of money! Quite the opposite: it's marvelous that we never need to have a shortage of money.

The problem is when the bookkeeper starts raping the debitor with interest for no other reason than the associated minus. And takes all this interest himself. Just for the service of bookkeeping!

We pay $300k in interest in thirty years for our $200k mortgage which was created by entering some numbers in a computer bookkeeping application!

temple1.jpgJesus admonished us to lend freely, expecting nothing in return. The Vedas abhor usury. Moses forbade it. Half of the Q'uran is Allah threatening severe punishment for those taking Usury.

Money is bookkeeping. We don't need interest for savers. The bank doesn't need savers. Debit and Credit are the two sides of the coin in bookkeeping. They are automatic.

Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management; it is allowing vultures to do it.

The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of 'officialdom'.

Saying 'the market must do it' is saying the Plutocracy has been doing a good job over the last 5000 years.

We want interest-free mortgages, no income tax, no poverty. We want abundance, good will, a cultural rebirth, fairness and an end to Plutocracy.

Kill Usury!

[Buster's Uncle]

...I'd swear this was anti-big business talk, von...

[vonbach]

...I'd swear this was anti-big business talk, von...

You seem to have me mistaken for a republican lol.
I don't care if someone makes money. The world needs rich people
they give poor people jobs. I do care when someone makes money
off of human misery and thats what usury banking does.

[Buster's Uncle]

I've never quite made up my mind, von - this part isn't what I would have expected, but -eh- good for you for thinking for yourself.  Really.

Would you agree that some sort of temporary financing arrangement is necessary to a lot of business ventures?  How would you suggest replacing the function that banks play in that with something that someone will feel motivated to make loans?

[Yitzi]

The only way money is becoming worth less is when there's more of it to go around, and that won't make the economy collapse unless it happens really fast (which it isn't).

The problem is everytime you loan out money at interest it degrades.

Except that's not true.

Here have an article.

Usury is the original sin and the root cause of all our economic and political problems.

The truth is we have everything we need to create an interest-free money supply. An usury-free economy ends poverty and saves our souls in the process.

The love of money is the root of all evils. Usury is the weaponization of money love. It feeds the avarice of the usurer. It forces ever more debtors into ever more immoral behavior. It replaces love with commerce. It corrupts commerce, which becomes ever more exploitative. It rips apart the fabric of society and makes a mockery of any kind of social contract.

Billions of people live in abject poverty all over the world because of it. Entire communities, nations are gutted to pay the interest to the opulent. Nobody counts the billions dying prematurely from its effects.

Poor countries pay ten times more interest on their foreign debts than they receive development aid.

Even when not in debt, forty percent of our income is lost to interest passed on in prices by producers. The many pay anywhere between five and ten trillion per year to the wealthy. All other rents ultimately are based on cost for capital and would hardly exist without usury.

<It is the ultimate centralizer of power and it is global. It has been growing at a compound interest rate for centuries, and now this incredible cancer is ready to devour the host body.

The European nations put up $4.5 trillion in handouts, easy credit and guarantees to 'save' their banks and the euro. The Fed provided an unimaginable $16 trillion dollars in easy credit to its banking buddies. Much of it was never repaid. This is 'necessary' because without banks we would not have money. So the West put up $20 trillion to have some bits and bytes and paper and coins circulate to exchange goods and services.

Surely the end of our civilization is near when we allow such rapacious plunder while there is no money to save the poor from starvation and the Earth from pollution.

SENSELESS

We think: "without interest there will be no credit! I would not lend if I didn't get anything back."

But the Money Power doesn't lend anything!

Money is just bookkeeping and credit is an automatic result of double entry bookkeeping, which by its very nature knows debit and credit.

The problem is not the creation of money! Quite the opposite: it's marvelous that we never need to have a shortage of money.

The problem is when the bookkeeper starts raping the debitor with interest for no other reason than the associated minus. And takes all this interest himself. Just for the service of bookkeeping!

We pay $300k in interest in thirty years for our $200k mortgage which was created by entering some numbers in a computer bookkeeping application!

temple1.jpgJesus admonished us to lend freely, expecting nothing in return. The Vedas abhor usury. Moses forbade it. Half of the Q'uran is Allah threatening severe punishment for those taking Usury.

Money is bookkeeping. We don't need interest for savers. The bank doesn't need savers. Debit and Credit are the two sides of the coin in bookkeeping. They are automatic.

Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management; it is allowing vultures to do it.

The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of 'officialdom'.

Saying 'the market must do it' is saying the Plutocracy has been doing a good job over the last 5000 years.

We want interest-free mortgages, no income tax, no poverty. We want abundance, good will, a cultural rebirth, fairness and an end to Plutocracy.

Kill Usury!

I see a lot there saying that interest-based banking is evil, but very little arguing for it actually being harmful.  The closest it comes is noting that the need to pay interest on money borrowed adds to prices (though I strongly doubt that 40% figure is accurate).

However, it misunderstands what the interest is: When you pay a bank interest to borrow, you're not paying them for bookkeeping.  You're paying them for letting you use (and risk losing) money that, according to the bookkeeping we all agree on, they should be entitled to use.

Basically, if you eliminated the bank loans, the equivalent to banks would be the people who sell you resources so you can build a new factory on the understanding that you don't have to pay until your factory produces enough that you can afford it...and the interest would then be the extra price they add because they aren't getting paid until later (and won't get paid at all if you go out of business).

[vonbach]

Except that's not true.

Yes it is.  Sorry you cant just make money out of thin air and charge people for it. Like the Federal reserve does.
 When you do this its worth a little less every time.
The net result of this little game is there simply is no way to pay off the debt. Its impossible, there isn't enough money in circulation.
Its a perfect system of slavery. The result of the federal reserve ( a private corporation btw). None of the debt is actually real.

Would you agree that some sort of temporary financing arrangement is necessary to a lot of business ventures?  How would you suggest replacing the function that banks play in that with something that someone will feel motivated to make loans?

There was banking before they charged interest on loans. You get money from profit not though interest shell games.
You get a partner in the business or venture or whatever until you pay off the loan.

[Yitzi]

Except that's not true.

Yes it is.  Sorry you cant just make money out of thin air and charge people for it. Like the Federal reserve does.

You're right that they should use a different method to distribute the money they print than "charge people to borrow it"...but that's not where most banking money comes from.

When you do this its worth a little less every time.

Because you printed money...but we don't print money at enough rate to make that a major factor.

The net result of this little game is there simply is no way to pay off the debt. Its impossible, there isn't enough money in circulation.

That's not a problem; if people wanted to pay off all the debts, then they could pay off some, and then that money would eventually make its way back around so they could pay off more, and keep going until it's all paid off.

The thing is, usually when people borrow money it's to get something they couldn't afford otherwise, and they would rather use any money they get to get more such things than to pay off their debt.
 

Its a perfect system of slavery. The result of the federal reserve ( a private corporation btw). None of the debt is actually real.

What constitutes "real" debt?

There was banking before they charged interest on loans. You get money from profit not though interest shell games.
You get a partner in the business or venture or whatever until you pay off the loan.

That could work for business ventures...but how do you think we should handle people who would rather be in debt than have to live within their current means (which probably means not owning a home of their own)?

[vonbach]

That's not a problem; if people wanted to pay off all the debts, then they could pay off some, and then that money would eventually make its way back around so they could pay off more, and keep going until it's all paid off.

The thing is, usually when people borrow money it's to get something they couldn't afford otherwise, and they would rather use any money they get to get more such things than to pay off their debt.

No. You don't understand. There is no way to pay off the debt its impossible. Its not just a matter of saving or investing.The money simply isn't there. Its the entire point of the scam.
Does anyone ever wonder why one or two percent of the population owns pretty much everything?
Does anyone really think they do this honestly?

What constitutes "real" debt?

Debt thats not the result of fraud.

[Yitzi]

That's not a problem; if people wanted to pay off all the debts, then they could pay off some, and then that money would eventually make its way back around so they could pay off more, and keep going until it's all paid off.

The thing is, usually when people borrow money it's to get something they couldn't afford otherwise, and they would rather use any money they get to get more such things than to pay off their debt.

No. You don't understand. There is no way to pay off the debt its impossible. Its not just a matter of saving or investing.The money simply isn't there. Its the entire point of the scam.

Some of the money is there, and once you pay that off, it will flow around so it'll be there again.

Does anyone ever wonder why one or two percent of the population owns pretty much everything?
Does anyone really think they do this honestly?

The reason for that is obvious: It's because under capitalism, the more money you have the more you can earn by it being used to produce more stuff, so whoever had money got even more money on top of that.

What constitutes "real" debt?

Debt thats not the result of fraud.

So what did the banks say that was not true and led to the debt in question?