The Political Measuring Stick

[ithink]

I think you owe me an apology, comparing me to the Apostate Deckers et al. OK, so let's call it even; your condescending statements for my comparison to apostates. My reference to the primitive church was to show that the Old Testament doctrines lasted until just a few hundred year ago. That is a long time! And as for the integrity of that church, I thank them for what they did. Your attitude smarts of "And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?... O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them." I don't know what part of the ancient church this applies to, but I'm speaking of the attitude. I can thank many individual Christians during this period for their extraordinary work in preserving the Bible (Tyndale, etc.). On the other hand I know that God had a lot to do with making sure the said church didn't take too many "plain and precious parts" from the Bible as well. The general leadership of this said church committed many atrocities and trampled all over individual agency. Its difficult for me to thank them for much, especially when they were instrumental in preventing the Bible's release to the "unwashed" masses and for the removal of many plain and precious parts.

And as for those who reject me because "I rub them the wrong way". Get over it. Continuing with this elitish, condescending attitude will give you a hard time getting anyone to listen to you wholeheartedly. Here is what I wrote the author of a famous money video most of you have seen, about my attitude to everyone else: "I don't care about the appearance of the messenger, good, bad, ugly, proud, humble, a$$hole, or saintly nun. I only care about the message." Goes much too far for my taste (especially with your choice of vocabulary). I would not recommend playing with evil. We are supposed to steer clear of it as did Joseph with Potiphar's wife. If you don't adopt that attitude yourself, you'll be forever stuck and constantly missing out on the pieces you need to put it all together. Agree to disagree (and recommend others to stay away from this advice).

About the grade 5 math. I'm sorry, but it is grade 5 math. If someone can't do it, they fail grade 5 math. Again, elitish and condescending. Makes me say =;. Shall I lie about it, or shall you, or shall we be honest men admit who is wrong and continue a frank (albeit painful) and honest discussion, or shall we derail the thread and never resolve our minds to the issue at hand? Fine with me if you can stop with the elitism and condescension.

Finally, you say here that I used the word "fool" against the site owner. I object and impeach you as a liar. I said no such thing, but you libeled me by changing my words and falsely saying I did. I may be wrong, but you have never corrected me until now. I still cannot tell what was meant by:

Full stop right now, you've made a massive error.

Still appears that "fool" was the word sought for.

So, I will listen to you when you quit the elitism. It's really tough to take anyone seriously when they degrade left and right, accusing people of:

fawning at Brian's feet

I am ready for a civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion where all can learn together if you are. If I am to take you seriously, you will agree to be civil. If not, then I have had enough. A civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion requires mutual respect or else it will lead to nowhere.

Your economy is tanking and the collective fallout is going to be total disaster. If you want answers, have a hard look at what I have offered, regardless of how it was offered. Go read the letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Frankly, what I have written doesn't even begin to approach what was exchanged between those two men -- real men. If you and your feelings and your opinions are made of glass, that is your problem -- not mine. The fact is because of the collective attitude not unlike yours, we are not ready to stand up and meet the challenge that is before us head on. In my opinion, we stand ready to get run over Book of Mormon style.

Now what was this thread about?

[ithink]

Mummy: I think most of us agree with your concept of all/most of the assets ultimately going to the banker due to the high level of control he has over the economy (since that is what is happening today under the Fed and their buddies). However, I may differ from Brian on this, my point in showing that it is mathematically possible for the principle + interest to be paid off (although definitely unlikely in our current system) is to support the idea that interest, in and of itself, is not evil (I believe ithink disagrees vehemently with this though). Evil comes when men use the concept of interest to achieve their own evil goals. I believe interest could be used righteously (although historically it has been wickedly abused). Else why would the Savior refer to interest in a positive way in some of his parables??

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

[ithink]

...I could acquiesce to the grossly flawed analogy of the site owner, but I'd be lying to myself if I did, and I'm not prepared to do that.

Just stop, ithink, you're embarrassing yourself. My analogy was not supposed to be realistic at all, simply to illustrate math that shows in completely controlled la-la-land scenario it is possible to pay of all the interest and debt. You're comments reveal you didn't quite grasp every aspect of the scenario, if you re-read and re-read my simple scenario you'll see the math, it's possible. Anyways... let's get back on track here, no need for the kind of behavior your displaying here.

I'm not feeling embarrassed.

Brian, look. You posted a flawed analogy, even in lalaland terms. If you will simply correct your analogy and tell us not how much Smith owes, but how much he was lent, we can put this to bed. A lot of people that read this post seemed convinced by your analogy that the real system we have could work. That may not have been your intention, but that is what happened. What was the principal that Mr. Smith received from the bank in your closed system example?

[creator]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

[ithink]

FULL STOP.

DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO THIS THREAD

If you have such an aversion to the British system Teancum, then pay some attention to what I am saying, because the system that is working against us and is going to start WWIII and destroy your country, or what is left of it, is the British system of hedgemony -- not the superficial one, but the one behind the scenes. Yes, they still have their thumb on you!

I am not your enemy sir, I am giving you the key to unlock your chains. I am telling you not just what is wrong, but how to fix it. You picked a great name for the forum -- if the original Teancum was here today, do you think he'd be worried about the way the solution was presented, or do you think he'd be wanting to know where to cast his javelin? If you find what I am saying is true, you don't have to reference me for it, I simply don't care. Just say you googled it.

[ithink]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

By the same token I've asked what was the principal lent to Mr. Smith? We must know that before your example can be vetted in the real or any other world.

[Original_Intent]

My point was only about the mathematically possibility applied to la-la-land, and example that would never be reality... not to say interest is not evil, or rather that the current system is not evil, and the way it operates makes it impossible to pay off all of the debt and interest.

???? Was not your example was meant to convince us that the system was not terminal, which it is. I don't care about lala land Brian, I am concerned only with reality. Do you have a real world example to illustrate your point?

No my example was not meant to convince anyone that the system is not terminal, of course it is terminal! I never denied that. My example was meant only for a limited objective, of showing that there are scenario's, however unrealistic, that show it's mathematically possible to pay off all the debt and interest, that's it, it wasn't about what we're experiencing in the real world. I think I made that very clear over and over again in my posts.

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

[ithink]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

[Original_Intent]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

[creator]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

[Jason]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

[creator]

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Yes. and sorry, I didn't mean for my la-la-land scenario to become such a focus of this discussion, a distraction from the truly important issues we face today with such corruption and evil involved in our money system, the tool satan is using effectively to further his plan.

I came across an article by Ezra Taft Benson that addresses some of these economic problems, worth reading: Problems Affecting Our Domestic Tranquillity

[ithink]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

[ithink]

I understood that you were illustrating theoretical possibility, not practical application. I appreciate the value of your theoretical concept, but it appears not all do, Brian. I think it is worth seeing how it could work because it further illustrates what the cause of the problem in reality is. If we just say "it's mathematically impossible" and accept that, then we look no further for the cause of the problem. By you showing that it IS mathematically possible, then it forces us to peel back another layer of the onion and look for real root causes.

Well said. I'm game. What was the principal lent to Mr. Smith?

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

Good, we have a number. Mr. Smith receives $100,000 in this closed economy. Within X number of months, Smith owes $130,000 to the banker. Please indicate where Mr. Smith will get that $30,000 to pay the banker back. Furthermore, please indicate where the banker got $100 to slide down Smiths' slide.

[ithink]

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

It absolutely matters. This is the whole point. I wouldn't come out of hiding for nothing.

So good, we have a number. Mr. Smith receives $100,000 in this closed economy. Within X number of months, Smith owes $130,000 to the banker. Please indicate where Mr. Smith will get that $30,000 to pay the banker back. Furthermore, please indicate where the banker got $100 to slide down Smiths' slide.

[ithink]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

[ithink]

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Yes. and sorry, I didn't mean for my la-la-land scenario to become such a focus of this discussion, a distraction from the truly important issues we face today with such corruption and evil involved in our money system, the tool satan is using effectively to further his plan.

I came across an article by Ezra Taft Benson that addresses some of these economic problems, worth reading: Problems Affecting Our Domestic Tranquillity

In fact, your analogy is not a distraction but has brought the incredible (in French -- incroyable, or unbelievable) situation at hand to the forefront. I would keep it there if I were you, little else matters if this one critical path issue is not resolved -- and fast.

I am currently seeing the same objections raised to the premise that interest based currency systems are terminal as I was when I taught that all money was created out of thin air just 10 short years ago. It was very unknown then, but people are mostly the wiser now and accept that fact readily today. Here we are 10 years later, and the only question is: do we have 10 more years to change peoples minds on this one? I hope so, but I do not think so. Not close. Search your intellect and your feelings and see if you do not feel the same way. Hence my unapologetic approach, but frankly, there are times when the truth needs to be spoken and the speaker need not excuse himself. And since I know none of you personally, rest assured I mean no offense unless the facts I am promulgating you hate, then offended you will be.

From the article you referred Brian, good as it is, there is this impossibility: "We urge our members to stay out of debt...." Unfortunately, in any debt system, there is no way to get out of debt. Everything is by loans, so there we are being asked something that is impossible. Debt is not the enemy. The ability to make a promise and keep it is not the enemy. Compound interest is, because it makes it utterly impossible for us all to make good on our word.

And that Virginia, is the utter hopelessness of our condition.

[Jason]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

He's got to cut the previous lawnmower owner's lawn first....

[Jason]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

[Original_Intent]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mr. Bernanke will credit Smith's loan balance rather than paying in cash.

Either you are being incredibly obtuse, or you are so focused on winning an argument that you won't open your eyes and read. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'd prefer to keep to the discussion at hand than go all ad hominem on you - but it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is clearly dead set against being reasonable. =;

I would also add (after reading your last post) that the idea that you were one of the "select few" to understand that money was created out of thin air ten years ago is a testament to your vanity and is also complete hogwash.

[ithink]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

He's got to cut the previous lawnmower owner's lawn first....

I thought the lawnmower was new. And besides, isn't this example of a closed system? Not that it matters, but we're discussing Bernanke and Smith to make the point. Everyone reading this should understand that in this system, it doesn't matter if the system is open or closed, the same principles apply.

[ithink]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

When you get a loan, the bank takes the promissory note and holds it (usually). Whether they sell it or not is not always clear. At any rate, they have an asset that you created. They put money into the economy because that asset exists. That is called your loan. When your money comes back to pay off the loan, and it is paid in full, they take that promissory note off the books. In effect, it is destroyed. All the money that "circulates" while the loan is yet to be paid is just symbolic of the fact that somewhere a bank holds a promissory note signed by someone else. And, when there is less currency in circulation, it means more people have paid off their loans.

When the system gets near terminal like it is now, the money supply decreases as people desperately and increasingly remove money from "circulation" to meet their obligations. Many panic and work twice as hard to pay off debt so "they're not the last one with the bag". This in turn hurts the economy even more. It's a disaster. God help us.

[ithink]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mr. Bernanke will credit Smith's loan balance rather than paying in cash.

Either you are being incredibly obtuse, or you are so focused on winning an argument that you won't open your eyes and read. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'd prefer to keep to the discussion at hand than go all ad hominem on you - but it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is clearly dead set against being reasonable. =;

I would also add (after reading your last post) that the idea that you were one of the "select few" to understand that money was created out of thin air ten years ago is a testament to your vanity and is also complete hogwash.

I'll have it any way. But I'm willing to stick around until you eat your words. Brian already told us that the bank only loaned out $100K of the $130K Smith had to pay back. Now sir, demonstrate that you are not pontificating as you accuse me so of, and please tell us all where that extra $30K will come from.

I really don't care about this whole discussion, except that it is absolutely critical that as many people as possible understand what is wrong and what to do RIGHT NOW. The time for messing around is over, we need to be ready to know what to do ASAP.

[Original_Intent]

OK I'll make it easy for you.

Smith repays $30,000. so at this point Smith has $70,000, and his lender has $30,000, and Smith owes $100,000. <----tell me if you have lost me here or are you with me?
Then Smith is out walking one day and finds a shiny stone on the ground. He shows it to his lender who absolutley must have it! He offers to pay Smith $30,000 for the pretty rock, and Smith agrees. Smith now has $100,000 and owes $100,000. <--- tell me if you are still with me or if I have committed some grave logical fallacy!!!!
Smith pays back the $100,000 . The lender has been repaid all $130,000 with only $100,000 in the closed economy!!! <---Did I lose you on that? Are you with us?

[Jason]

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

When you get a loan, the bank takes the promissory note and holds it (usually). Whether they sell it or not is not always clear. At any rate, they have an asset that you created. They put money into the economy because that asset exists. That is called your loan. When your money comes back to pay off the loan, and it is paid in full, they take that promissory note off the books. In effect, it is destroyed. All the money that "circulates" while the loan is yet to be paid is just symbolic of the fact that somewhere a bank holds a promissory note signed by someone else. And, when there is less currency in circulation, it means more people have paid off their loans.

When the system gets near terminal like it is now, the money supply decreases as people desperately and increasingly remove money from "circulation" to meet their obligations. Many panic and work twice as hard to pay off debt so "they're not the last one with the bag". This in turn hurts the economy even more. It's a disaster. God help us.

Thank you for the refresher!!!