Debate thread.

[Xaol]

I was talking about the digital destruction of money, through the raising of interests rates.

If you want to talk about digital money creation it's only fair to talk about digital money destruction as well. If we're going to talk about paper money destruction, then lets talk about paper money creation, but interchanging between them is comparing apples to oranges, and that's exactly what you're doing right now.

People get concerned about the Federal Reserve printing money because they don't understand how the Fed can "unprint" money. However, by raising the Fed funds rate and other constrictive monetary policy measures, the Fed can dry up liquidity. This has the same effect as taking money out of circulation.

You called me liar because I said this: the truth is that physical destruction of paper money is insignificant to the amount of money printed in digital form. It was always about digital and paper money printing. Taking money out of circulation is not at all destroying money. The money is there, sinked into Wall Street bubble and housing bubble and whatnot. It can explain why the inflation is low, but it doesn't logically prove my thesis false. And in no way it proves false the original thesis of BB, that we print more money created from debt to repay debt, to repay debt, ...

"we"? I thought you lived in...some country were the Vikings lived

Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)

[Birdbrain]

Oh. My mistake

[Piotr]

"We" because the mechanism of creating fiat money based on debt is used by pretty much every government on the planet. Please note that this does not make the mechanism right nor using it wise. Billions of flies can be wrong and we really shouldn't eat .poo.

EDIT: what I mean by this is that truth cannot be decided by the number of people claiming it to be true. It takes one man with logical explanation to falsify any statement which is backed by millions, providing his proof is logical and based on facts.

[Piotr]

Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)

I used to live in Poland which gave me first hand experience of living in a country with socialism pretty much implemented. Now I live UK and see socialism in the final stages of being implemented. UK is part of EU same as Texas is part of US.

Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.

People generally try to emigrate from countries which are worse to live in to countries which are better to live in, fact. Looking at best available examples of Western and Eastern Germany, and North and South Korea, it can be seen that people try to emigrate to a country with the least amount of socialism, fact.

Feel free to call a lie on any of this, just make sure that if you do yo make it in polite scientific way, and you backup your claim with logical explanation and corresponding facts, not a link to logically unrelated leftish blog, please.

[Xaol]

Piotr either lives in England or Poland (if I remember correctly)

I used to live in Poland which gave me first hand experience of living in a country with socialism pretty much implemented. Now I live UK and see socialism in the final stages of being implemented. UK is part of EU same as Texas is part of US.

Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.

People generally try to emigrate from countries which are worse to live in to countries which are better to live in, fact. Looking at best available examples of Western and Eastern Germany, and North and South Korea, it can be seen that people try to emigrate to a country with the least amount of socialism, fact.

Feel free to call a lie on any of this, just make sure that if you do yo make it in polite scientific way, and you backup your claim with logical explanation and corresponding facts, not a link to logically unrelated leftish blog, please.

If this is directed to you, I completely agree. Having moved from Ireland to the US I can say that the only real difference is the US has a better economy. The .politics. still suck.
Having said that, I do plan to move back to Ireland when the economy stabilises a bit. Already the terrorism and violence has died down quite a bit, which I'm thankful for.

Personally I think free market systems would be better for everyone. However, when things take a turn for the worst, people (wrongly) expect the government to fix things.

[whitedrake]

Here's a thesis for you: socialist countries are much worse to live in for generally everyone, than countries with free market as an economical system, assuming all other variables being equal.

Piotr I have to disagree with your terminology here... I guess you are more talking about communism, not about socialism... Bcs socialism itself does not exclude free market. For example Norway is proof that socialism can work. And it is free market here...

There is a quite big difference between those two expressions (even though they have roots in same philosophy)... And believe me I know what I am talking about I was born and lived in Czech Republic during the time when communistic party was in charge...

[Piotr]

How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.

Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.

I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please?

[Piotr]

How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.

Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.

I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please?

Ha ha what I am saying is in the UK you have Labour which which is basically conservatives but in red which part privatised a lot of industries and gave out insane public-private contracts which only benefitted the private companies( well those that did not go bankrupt). Now they have been kicked out you have the Tories basically scrabbling to privatise the rest of the stuff they did not do last time they were in. They are also trying to change employment laws for the worse, massive cuts to benefits while giving a tax cut of 5% to the rich. The Lib dems which sold out their supporters by agreeing to hike university education to £9000 instead of the usual £3000. Then you have UKIP on the rise which is euro sceptic far right ex-conservatives which are basically on par with the BNP. Social? More like anti-social!!!

Ok now it's clear enough, so let me clarify my reasoning as well: I define free market as a place where everyone is free to operate their business however they like, as long as they do not hurt other people in the process. Like operating under iMtG Law for example.

I do not define free market by ownership. It doesn't matter if a company is private or not if they have government granted monopoly, for example. It doesn't matter if a company is private if it is not free to enter agreements without governmental approval, like for example I cannot hire you for £3/hour even if you would be happy to work for me at this rate. It isn't free market nor proper private property if I cannot change my garden shed for bigger without governmental approval. There are plethora of examples along these lines.

Now what you are complaining about is indeed confirmation that we are in the late stages of socialism implementation. You see, socialism is very very inefficient and in the long run it always always runs out of money. That's what I've seen in Poland where we had food rationing in 70's and 80's. We are not as bad in the UK because we still have some freedom left, but the implementation stage is advanced enough for everyone to see that the money is gone. Socialism is also, by design, promoting corruption and the private-public sector contracts are just that.

BTW, I vote UKIP and they are right indeed (not as right as iMtG Law, but closest of all UK parties that I know of), and no they are not even close to BNP. BNP is left: national socialists, the same ideology as NSDAP.

[Piotr]

How long have you been living in the UK? The reason I say this is because it hardly is in the final stages of being a socialist country.

Since 2004, with a year gap in 2010/2011 when I was living in South Korea and Malaysia.

I'm not sure if I want to call a lie on your thesis, could you clarify if you mean that UK is not at all in the final stages because you believe it to be mostly free market economy, or that you believe it already is a socialist country, please?

Ha ha what I am saying is in the UK you have Labour which which is basically conservatives but in red which part privatised a lot of industries and gave out insane public-private contracts which only benefitted the private companies( well those that did not go bankrupt). Now they have been kicked out you have the Tories basically scrabbling to privatise the rest of the stuff they did not do last time they were in. They are also trying to change employment laws for the worse, massive cuts to benefits while giving a tax cut of 5% to the rich. The Lib dems which sold out their supporters by agreeing to hike university education to £9000 instead of the usual £3000. Then you have UKIP on the rise which is euro sceptic far right ex-conservatives which are basically on par with the BNP. Social? More like anti-social!!!

Ok now it's clear enough, so let me clarify my reasoning as well: I define free market as a place where everyone is free to operate their business however they like, as long as they do not hurt other people in the process. Like operating under iMtG Law for example.

I do not define free market by ownership. It doesn't matter if a company is private or not if they have government granted monopoly, for example. It doesn't matter if a company is private if it is not free to enter agreements without governmental approval, like for example I cannot hire you for £3/hour even if you would be happy to work for me at this rate. It isn't free market nor proper private property if I cannot change my garden shed for bigger without governmental approval. There are plethora of examples along these lines.

Now what you are complaining about is indeed confirmation that we are in the late stages of socialism implementation. You see, socialism is very very inefficient and in the long run it always always runs out of money. That's what I've seen in Poland where we had food rationing in 70's and 80's. We are not as bad in the UK because we still have some freedom left, but the implementation stage is advanced enough for everyone to see that the money is gone. Socialism is also, by design, promoting corruption and the private-public sector contracts are just that.

BTW, I vote UKIP and they are right indeed (not as right as iMtG Law, but closest of all UK parties that I know of), and no they are not even close to BNP. BNP is left: national socialists, the same ideology as NSDAP.

Your argument is quite flawed. It's seems that you have not looked into UKIP and its membership. Corruption occurs in any system to state in appears in just a socialist one is quite ridiculous, unfortunately capitalist approaches do not work, privatisation of certain services does not work. It's not about socialism it is about common sense. Anyone that votes UKIP needs their head examined as they would be disasterous for the UK and truly not understand their agenda.

I never said that corruption appears just in socialism, I said that by design socialism promotes corruption. Socialism was designed to redistribute wealth and this very fact makes all sort of crooks flock to it, because where wealth is redistributed, especially as large wealth as it is extorted in taxes these days, it is relatively easy to divert part of this wealth where the crooks want it to go, which is their own pockets. This is easy in socialism because when wealth is extorted from its owners, it looses the ownership and becomes 'common good' and the rightful owner doesn't mind it anymore. It is almost always easier to steal from 'everyone' than from a particular entity, and furthermore it is almost always easier to steal from a large single sum of money, than from many smaller sums of money. This is what I meant and it is quite logical, you are more than welcome to refute my logic, please. If you on the other hand continue along the lines of 'my head needs to be examined', you may find your Gathering membership revoked, so please be careful.

Oh and BNP is a left organisation? Hate to see what you call right wing, they swing more to the right than Tories!!

You seem to have fallen a victim of the common misconception that BNP and the likes (NSDAP comes to mind immediately) are far right. They are not, they are socialist party calling for reductions in free market, under nationalist slogans. They are national socialists, if you will. It doesn't particularly matter if freedoms are removed because socialists want to redistribute wealth from its rightful owners to members of particular nation, or to members of particular social class, or any other group of people. What matters is that socialists are forcefully, at gunpoint, extorting wealth from the people who were rightful owners of the wealth, to some other people. They do it under many mostly false pretences, and what is common to all socialists is that they believe that goal justifies the means. They believe it is ok to rob one group of people and give to other group of people. That makes them left, not right.

[Piotr]

Don't agree with that at all. Their views and policies make them far right I'm afraid. Seems you slate the left anyway so I can understand why you don't want to be lumped in with racists and bigots, mr righty?

You are free to disagree. Can I ask you which of BNP's views and policies make them right, please?

[Piotr]

Quite frankly all of them, unfortunately while you are quite literate you seem to confuse logic with the actual reality of the policies. This is quite dangerous as it implies you have no understanding of levels of society and dare say had a great deal of life experience. I don't know you so can't really make that assumption just an observation. It's funny as I am a activist for the Green party and hear what people say what is wrong with the world but do nothing to change it. But never heard in my life the argument that BNP is a left wing organisation, that actually makes my blood run cold.

You mad bro:

"BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." - free market reduction -> left.

"To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership" - wealth redistribution -> left.

"Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers." - lol sounds like a bloody communist manifesto, no less -> left.

"The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day." - centrally planned economy -> left.

"Originally, benefits were meant as the state's obligation to support those who genuinely are not in a position to support themselves. This guiding principle must always remain the guiding light for a just and humane system – and it is the core of the British National Party's welfare policy." - socialism -> left.

These are all from BNP manifesto. They are on your side, on the left, bro You hate them because you compete for the same voters, but they think very similar to you: goal justifies the means.

As for my life experience, well, I'm a retired SAP consultant, married with two daughters. I own this forum and a house in Chobham, Surrey. I've been around for 37 years.

[whitedrake]

Quite frankly all of them, unfortunately while you are quite literate you seem to confuse logic with the actual reality of the policies. This is quite dangerous as it implies you have no understanding of levels of society and dare say had a great deal of life experience. I don't know you so can't really make that assumption just an observation. It's funny as I am a activist for the Green party and hear what people say what is wrong with the world but do nothing to change it. But never heard in my life the argument that BNP is a left wing organisation, that actually makes my blood run cold.

You mad bro:

"BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers." - free market reduction -> left.

"To that end the BNP will restore our economy and land to British ownership" - wealth redistribution -> left.

"Fully cognisant of the reality that economic growth is driven primarily by true free enterprise, a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates. Such schemes are the only guarantee of workers being motivated to ensure the success of their employers." - lol sounds like a bloody communist manifesto, no less -> left.

"The economy should be managed for the benefit of the nation. The other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism, which means that British workers must compete against those in China and India who work for as little as a pound a day." - centrally planned economy -> left.

"Originally, benefits were meant as the state's obligation to support those who genuinely are not in a position to support themselves. This guiding principle must always remain the guiding light for a just and humane system – and it is the core of the British National Party's welfare policy." - socialism -> left.

These are all from BNP manifesto. They are on your side, on the left, bro You hate them because you compete for the same voters, but they think very similar to you: goal justifies the means.

As for my life experience, well, I'm a retired SAP consultant, married with two daughters. I own this forum and a house in Chobham, Surrey. I've been around for 37 years.

Ehm most of this is like they would cut it out from Marx and Engels... What a weird politic scene you have in UK...?

[Piotr]

Ehm most of this is like they would cut it out from Marx and Engels... What a weird politic scene you have in UK...?

National socialists hasn't changed much since NSDAP, I wouldn't say it's especially weird. I would say it's a known problem

[Piotr]

Anyone that votes UKIP needs their head examined as they would be disasterous for the UK and truly not understand their agenda.

I feel very sorry Pitor as it seems you have not learnt anything in your life.

I find the above statements bigoted, false and personally insulting. Could you apologise, please?

[whitedrake]

Heh ok, one source of ideology, same herd...

Honestly I would let them to show themselves... People would be rioting in couple of months...

The thing is that after all that happened in 20th century, 2nd ww, 40 yrs of communism in the eastern block of europe noone can be fooled anymore... Even during the so called economy crisis...