The UK banking system
- Thread starter zArk
- Start date
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You don't have any answers do you? What a pity, some of what you say was potentially interesting, but flawed due to a lack of discrimination re sources.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You're either ready to defend your opinions using real sources or you're into bullshit. I get the idea that you are into bullshit and ready to scream if called.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
After all, I'm not asking much. Just that you make your case using credible sources.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Show me. Don't weasel.
If your 'hassle' is insinuating that I have linked to websites I haven't, and generally throwing completely unfounded insults, then dodging any questions coming back at you, well it's hassle that doesn't bother me Bernie. I might add, I am surprised at you.Bernie Gunther said:
the intelligence quota is tort between the answer and the question but moreso for how the question is received and how to answer in a way the questioner will accept.
it is a chessgame due to the answer already being known yet waiting for the move to be made.
seduced into the sublime landscape which engulfs our decisions while we revel blissfully in viewing the entire scene.
the question is innocent yet begins to appear malevolent as subjectivity fades into total control. The answer seems so easy, yet is one a pawn on the chessboard rather than the controlling hand?
answer the question and find out how the pieces lie or maybe something else
how does money as commodity affect capitalism?
it is a chessgame due to the answer already being known yet waiting for the move to be made.
seduced into the sublime landscape which engulfs our decisions while we revel blissfully in viewing the entire scene.
the question is innocent yet begins to appear malevolent as subjectivity fades into total control. The answer seems so easy, yet is one a pawn on the chessboard rather than the controlling hand?
answer the question and find out how the pieces lie or maybe something else
how does money as commodity affect capitalism?
It was an old thread, that White Lotus ran off to because she couldn't face the fact that she didn't really know about money at all. Don't let them bother youAzrael23 said:They`ve started a "conspiraloon" thread in general chit chat
I think they`re regrouping....its mildly cretinous
White Lotus
Provisional Buddhist
I do understand about money quite well, thank you. I have worked with quite large sums in various capacities, and have worked for two financial publishers. I just can't be arsed to tackle the mish-mash of half-baked theories being bandied about by four of you.Jazzz said:It was an old thread, that White Lotus ran off to because she couldn't face the fact that she didn't really know about money at all. Don't let them bother you
But you don't - you just think you do. Your assertion that banks do not create money was completely erroneous. Even the bankers admit it! 97% of our currency is bank-created - on which interest is payable.White Lotus said:
And don't lump me in with any other poster here. I speak for myself only.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Jazzz said:
I don't no the others points but my issue has never been over banks creating money, my issue is over how introducing interest free money would end wars, exploitation and capitalism. I mean we could have interest free money coming ut our arse but it doesn't change the fact we don't control the means of production.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
zArk said:
Have you read "Reading Capital Politically" by Harry Cleaver? I'm half way through it at the moment. It explains in a lot of depth about the commodity form and the contradictions between use value and exchange value. No mystical bullshit though. Give it a read.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Jazzz said:1. I've certainly never said I believe lizards rule the world.
Errr...yes you have.
Jazzz said:
No shit sherlock
Jazzz said:
Here we get to the crux of the conspiraloon's state of mind - someone who knows what they're talking about doesn't agree with Jazzz, therefore they're wrong. You're a lunatic Jazzz.
Blagsta said:
Why are you still here, Blagsta? Earlier in this thread Azrael called you a "cretin." I don't think that of you, but I *do* think you are incredibly intellectually insecure. So much so that you simply can't stand seeing people have a discussion from which you are excluded because you haven't read the books that they have. So you: (a) attempt to disrupt and spoil that discussion; (b) invoke the authority of people you know, like your "Ph.D. student partner" or Slaar with his "degree in economics from Cambridge;" (c) randomly insult those who are trying to have a serious conversation (see above). Say what you like about Baudrillard--and I've been very critical of him in print myself--he is certainly among the two or three most important postmodernist philosophers, and is taught and read in every humanities department in the world. You can't just dismiss his ideas outright, you need to *argue* with them. But it seems that you are incapable of doing that. Fine--but don't try to impede those of us who are.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think the point being missed here may be this. It's all very well to talk of money as a commodity or abstraction, but that is not the only precondition for capitalism.
At least as important is the creation of a class with nothing to sell but their labour. This is why I was trying to raise the subject of primitive accumulation earlier.
At least as important is the creation of a class with nothing to sell but their labour. This is why I was trying to raise the subject of primitive accumulation earlier.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Bernie Gunther said:
yeah for all Zarks ranting about the myth of the economy he actually mystifies it himself, by fixating on money and finance capital he overlooks the much bigger picture, that the means of production are alienated from th 98% of the worlds population, and that until they are put to work for humanity instead of an abstraction like capital we will continue to paddle in a swamp of brutality.
I see you've not yet replied to my last post. You're yet to define what you mean by 'creating credit out of thin air'. Banks do not just, as you say, type numbers onto a spreadsheet. Money is deposited with them, they have to hold some as a reserve requirement as not everybody wants to spend it at once, and some deposit money in banks long term so the banks know they can use it; indeed, that's why bank deposit accounts bear interest for savers. It's not just big bad banks who gain, but people like you and I with savings accounts.Jazzz said:1. I've certainly never said I believe lizards rule the world.
2. Slaar isn't the only poster that went to Cambridge around here.
3. The fact that even someone with an economics degree from Cambridge didn't appreciate that banks create credit out of thin air - doesn't that tell you something?
With the rest of the money they can lend it out, by moving the money from one account to another, or giving somebody the cash, it's the same thing. This could happen manually, even with the cash itself, and did before computers, it's just faster and easier now to do it electronically. There is nothing strange about this, by depositing money with banks savers give their permission for banks to lend money out to seek higher returns than if their money was sitting under their bed. Indeed if they don't, where does the return on savings come from, and why would anyone put money in a bank rather than keeping it under their bed?
This money can now be taken out and spent, and it will probably end up in a different bank account. Note that this is (original amount - reserve requirement). The same thing can happen to this money, except this time the new deposit is (original amount - reserve requirement squared). This is an iterative process. The instant the loan is recalled by the saver the process winds up, compensated for by other similar processes elsewhere. Lots of savers earn interest, the bank takes a profit on the difference between the lending rate and the deposit rate, and people get to borrow money to fund current expenditure with future earnings.
All your links confuse this process by supposing that the credit multiplier (which is indeed a phenomenon) operates through figures on a spreadsheet and to every deposit, when in fact it only operates on primary deposits, and only when the iterative process above operates in full.
There are, as Bernie has said, very interesting issues with money and credit creation. Banks creating credit out of thin air is not one of them.
Bernie Gunther said:
You are adding another element to this discussion
accumulation
"capitalism" is quite separate
as is wealth from money
they are not arbitary forms that interlink unless one moves analysis beyond "production of money".
Each of the above elements are, within accepted sociological thinking, separate entities.
I submit to you that because Money is Commodity, all elements merge and overlap wealth, money, value, capitalism, ethics, morals, accumulation, politics, identity, ideology, class without a basis in the 'real'.
Capitalism re-produces [RP] the real, there are 'RPreal' effects - factories, sweatshops, nukes, weapons, offices. I have never claimed that these things 'dont exist' per se instead that they are a perfect reproduction of the real.
The position God is given, through Descart, has been subsumed by this system. The system is in everything and everywhere around us.
Class is created through this system. The identity is based within a system that structures essential self as separate from capitalism and that capitalism perverts the self producing Class - working, ruling, middle.
This whole structure that introduces class, capitalism, socialism, identity is based after the production of money as a commodity. apriori of this system is pure sign.
Money is commodity, exchange mechanism, it has exchange value and it has use value co-inciding.
To [i will answer again, cause none of you will] place money as commodity within the concept of capitalism results in the initial find that the people/group who own the means of production are the bankers. Now this becomes less clear as we discover that the Bank is a corporation. The Bank owns itself. The investors can never produce more money than the bank, the bank is above and beyond any group or person owning it, through capitalism.
So we have a bank, that is entirely self-sufficient and under the law of the land is an individual.
Capitalism, rather than finding a person with agency, ethics, morals, it finds an individual created through Beaurocracy and protected by beaurocracy.
Capitalism is produced through signs and as such is baseless, it is myth.
all elements merge and overlap; wealth, money, value, capitalism, ethics, morals, accumulation, politics, identity, ideology, class without a basis in the 'real'.
Futhermore, using Capitalism [just to illustrate futher], money produces money which produces money. It is self-replicating, creating itself through its own image. As this system has proliferated throughout society re-producing the real in its own image, the Bank itself begins to re-produce itself.
Money is disappearing - literally - the cashless society is the final move of this system, re-producing its own self as society. Money will become completely beaurocrasy* - information.
*please note this explanation is through capitalist thinking.
It is always-already information yet in a visable and tangible form that of coins and notes, the deceiving system hides its basis through them. The determinate form is inside capitalism and outside of it, perverted self and essential self. Commodity/exchange mechanism/ use value and exchange value spread across the definitions and structure proposed by Capitalism and merge with the Production of Money.
The economy is at once internalised and material.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
zArk said:
This is nothing more than reification.
Aye, I've read Baudrillard and Jameson...so what?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I'd phrase it like this.
One interesting question is the size of the difference between the total of paper claims on wealth and the total wealth due to productive labour and primitive accumulation.
Another interesting question is what is likely to happen as a result of that difference. Will it generate massive devaluations, recomposition, WW3 etc?
One interesting question is the size of the difference between the total of paper claims on wealth and the total wealth due to productive labour and primitive accumulation.
Another interesting question is what is likely to happen as a result of that difference. Will it generate massive devaluations, recomposition, WW3 etc?
Quite so. There have been frequent financial collapses in the past, most notably recently in Argentina. But money is almost always an aggrevating factor rather than the trigger (in Argentina it was in part a nation spending far beyond its means over a long period of time).Bernie Gunther said:
But these are questions asked by economists and politicians for decades. They're not conspiracies. Jazz's quotes are consistently hugely out of date (like a 19th century quote from a Rothschild, which has about as much relevance to capitalism today as ideas of witchcraft has to modern medicine).
Bernie Gunther said:
no, you are ignoring the point;
To [i will answer again, cause none of you will] place money as commodity within the concept of capitalism results in the initial find that the people/group who own the means of production are the bankers. Now this becomes less clear as we discover that the Bank is a corporation. The Bank owns itself. The investors can never produce more money than the bank, the bank is above and beyond any group or person owning it, through capitalism.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Naturelement, it is always someone else who is "missing the point".
