Russian site has ripped Cytopia.org tracks

On 2007-07-20 19:42, Spindrift wrote:
A lot of the profits from banking is invested in precious metals and stones, bullions, property etc.

Money that is purely used as investment doesn't at all have the same impact on the economy as money in the hands of consumers.

It's quite different from if you would have that money yourself.

You might have used it to buy some music from me, or set up a company that like to hire my services as a developer. Buying up and stockpiling fixed resources on the other hand hardly creates that kind of flow.

On 2007-07-22 18:15, Prahlad wrote:

Coca Cola is a world scale consumption product that does you no good, the company behind it is one of the richest companies world wide, driven by greed and maximum profit, specialized in globalisation and explotation, that has a close to monopoly on the beverages market (just ask Pepsi or look at some sales figures).

Now musicians in our scene on the other hand are pretty much passion driven small cottage industry craftsmen, who in most cases never recover their investment, definetely not if you factor time spent in the studio in, and do it for the love of music and making a few people fly on a dancefloor.

On 2007-07-22 21:30, shamantrixx wrote:
If artist invest some money in the studio and wants to sell his music (including complains about web distributed mp3) than his drive is obviously the profit. When people share your music on the web it is quite a musical achievement 'cause people don't share lousy music... right? So beside music there is obviously present financial interest.

On 2007-07-22 21:30, shamantrixx wrote:

When people share your music on the web it is quite a musical achievement 'cause people don't share lousy music... right?

The name of the game is to make a largest profit for smallest amount of investment and effort. Where exactly in that sense do you see the distinction between producing coca cola and producing music? They both end up on shelves with a brand name and price attached. Or do they not?

Oh come on. Are we having a discussion or not? And, yes I am interested in the subject but it is really up to you to back up your claims.

How likely is it that every nation in the world has been conned by the bankers (including all the nations that don't have privately owned national banks!) and that every single bank in the world is functioning according to some highly immoral system that cons all the general public, every single economist on the planet, every single politician on the planet etc?

Maximum chaos and collapsing economies is a fundamental principle of economics? I don't think so. There is a huge middle ground between total chaos and unchanging stability.

Not quite. The money is controlled to stop inflation. That benefits everyone!

Again a huge generalisation. Most banks don't have control over the value of a national currency!

You first need to demonstrate that that is the case. Something you have failed to do throughout this discussion.

It isn't created from nowhere. It is created with government bonds which are backed by taxes.

My dispelling of such myths in no way amounts to me believing that everything is perfect. That is a logical fallacy. (And a very lame way of trying to make a point).

Are you really missing the obvious here? If cash is invested in materials, someone has that cash to spend!

Do you mean cash in hand? Cash in hand is not productive. (Called currency drain). It is only productive when it is spent. In other words when it is invested.

On 2007-07-22 23:40, Inner Demon wrote:
@ Spindrift: Well Undertow answered some of it for me, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because your reasoning is all based accepting these mysterious bankers as a fact, and IMO its a load of bollocks. I think there are people powerful enough to affect the world economy but the step from that to actually having some kind of deliberate control is monstrous....

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered....The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning

The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts.

Britain is the slave of an international financial bloc.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centrers has owned government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.

It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy...

But it still is a system where the money is created foremost by private banks, little by little on every deposit. AFAIK about 95% of the money in the world is created in this way.

On 2007-07-23 08:57, the daleks wrote:

like the spending and investment part- if someone is investing money in something, they are indeed 'spending' their money but on something that is not consumable i.e. rather can be put in the asset column of a debit sheet as opposed to an expense column. same difference, or sematics on how you 'define' spending

On 2007-07-22 22:11, faxinadu wrote:
shamantrixx...
...ya you are right everyone is wrong you win long live stalin

On 2007-07-23 01:27, Spindrift wrote:
@undertow
First of all I have not made any points about how fast the money is created by fractional reserve banking.
As I understand it only initial investments result in the bank being capable of lending out nine times the deposit.
So start a bank with $100 000 000 you have lying around and you can now lend out $90 000 00.
The statement you make; "If 1000$ is deposited in a bank that needs to keep a 10% fractional reserve, they have to keep 100$ in reserve and can loan out 900$." is kind of true, but with an initial investment they keep all $1000 as a reserve and can lend out $9000.

As long as they have 10% of what they lend out as reserve all is ok.

But it still is a system where the money is created foremost by private banks, little by little on every deposit. AFAIK about 95% of the money in the world is created in this way.

I don't know if you are disputing the fact that fractional reserve banking creates money or trying to claim that something you heard the the money masters video came out of my mouth?

Man you must be the highlight of the party....as soon as someone starts a discussion you tell them "the burden on proof is on you" for every claim they make?

Lend money you don't actually have and charge interest....pretty much a scam if you ask me...and we are all getting scammed.

...

And if you don't think there is any conspiracies going on when it comes to the monetary system you are quite naive and uninformed.

...

To me it's a pretty obvious case that the system we have is clearly corrupted and flawed and far from being of benefit for the public.

...

I also been pointing out some simple things that could be done to fix the system.
Like having the government in control over the issuing of money, not the bankers.

...

you don't seem to grasp that what is a flourishing economy for us is not what is flourishing for them [the bankers].

About the federal reserve you are right that the board of governors constitutes a part of the Federal Open Market Committee, which actually sets monetary policy in the U.S.
But the decisions of the board of governors is not directed by congress or the president, they simply have to report on the decisions they make but the elected officials does not set the monetary policy.

And regardless of the details the fact the the federal reserve is owned by private interests does give them a very important influence.

Just in the same way that a company needs a board of directors that stockholders agree with the government needs to appoint a board of governors that the owners agree with.

We today live in a global economy.
Your claim that every member of the public, economist and politician is conned is a joke.
Burden of proof on that comment is on you

There is several individuals who have enough monetary power to sink the economy of any country that refuses to play by the rules they like to play by.

So even if we in Sweden have a government controlled central bank the fact of the matter is that if the policies set by the government does not please the international market, the result would be very bad for the Swedish economy.

Also there is actually a few exceptions to the fraction reserve banking, like Islam banking.

Quote:

Maximum chaos and collapsing economies is a fundamental principle of economics? I don't think so. There is a huge middle ground between total chaos and unchanging stability.

You used the phrase maximum chaos I never did, I just said that they gain from fluctuations.

Funny way of trying to create a strawman.

Quote:

You first need to demonstrate that that is the case. Something you have failed to do throughout this discussion.

I have done so repeatedly, but since you seems to not be able to grasp the principles of fractional reserve banking it seems like it's not easy to get you to grasp how money creation actually happens.

Although you seem to have a lot of time making sentence by sentence rebuttals to every statement but no time to actually find out about the facts yourself I'll help you along with an example:
http://www.discusseconomics.com/articles/banking/where-do-banks-get-their-money/

Are you claiming that they only can lend as much as they have in bonds?

Again, try to grasp the concepts behind fractional reserve banking before you make more false statements.

So far you dispelled zilch and only made some vague speculations which show a lock of understanding for the principles we are discussing.

If you really are concerned I don't know why you claim you cannot sate your views in this forum, but still obviously have time to type endless attempts at dispelling everything I say as false.

If you had any informed arguments against some of the things i claim I sure don't mind hearing them and discuss them, but unless you actually can make coherent arguments against my claims I rather hear your point.

You might think they way I'm making a point is lame, but frankly you don't seem to even have a point.

About missing the obvious...spending and investment is not the same thing.
An investment is when you buy an asset expecting a return from it and rather the opposite of spending.

Money locked up in an investment is not the same as money spent, and I doubt you find many economists why share your views on that.
Money in an investment is money locked up.

I buy a piece of land for $100 000, then I have $100 000 less and someone else have $100 000 more.
It's just me and one other person trading an asset, and sure the person that sold the land could go and do some spending, but many times people dealing with investments sell to make other investments.

I instead buy a car for $100 000 I have $100 000 less, but the the company selling the car, the car manufacturer and it's employees, the companies they employ and their employees...etc...etc...have more money which they likely spend on buying more products from other companies.

But the key difference is that companies involved is actually making a profit on me buying the car and hence have generated money.

When I buy property it's only when counting the time when the seller had money locked up in the investment where it would have resulted in a profit, otherwise he probably just paid $100 000 for it and got that back. The whole concept of investments is to take cash out of the flow of the economy to try to be able to get more back at a later date.

So consumer spending does create more flow and hence money locked up as bankers investments, whether as gold or property, is most likely not money you and me will get in our hands.

On 2007-07-23 16:11, shamantrixx wrote:

Quote:

On 2007-07-22 22:11, faxinadu wrote: shamantrixx... ...ya you are right everyone is wrong you win long live stalin

Funny that you mention Stalin when you have a much closer example of the same politics running in your own backyard. That annoys at least half of the world but obviously you're more annoyed by my appearance and Russian sites ripping psytrance tracks.

Clean your own mess before you advice others about their behavior and use totalitarian metaphores to describe them.

So now this little dance has generated $13,55 for the bank and $535.9 for the economy and everyone involved in trading based on the money generated!

"You first need to demonstrate that that is the case. Something you have failed to do throughout this discussion. "

"The bankers just manage the money and take their cut."