Goldenages

Dylan, what you actually say - if I got that correct - is, that citizens should accept a certain inflation in order to avoid a complete financial desaster. While it is very honourable to think about ways of avoiding the financial breakdown, it is not possible to achieve a state free society while accepting central banking. Thats not moving the goalposts, its kicking the ball in the wrong direction Privat savings are indeed very important. But it is a wrong conclusion that private savings are dependent on spending from the federal government. First, the government can only print money. But the value that is represented by money is created by productive work. Actually you do not need any money at all to create value. All you need are commodities and the demand for them. It is socialistic thinking to believe that money is the important part of the free market, and it is socialistic thinking to believe that distributing money could cure any economic problems. Second, when it is - perfectly correct - stated that private savings are important, it is a contradiction to say that inflation should be accepted, cause inflation robs private savings. It does not matter wether taxes or inflation are raised or even just accepted - both have the same effect, i.e. less spending power for citizens. Inflation is nothing else than a masked tax. Karl Marx came up with the idea for central banking, during his lifetime there was a goldstandard used in Europe. It is the very idea of central banking to grab as much value as possible from the productive and transfer it to the state. And third, if Ludwig v. Mises is right, and there is good evidence he is, there is no way out: "There is no way to avoid the final collapse of a boom through credit expansion. The only question is whether the crisis should come earlier through the voluntary task of ending expansion, or later and with a total disaster of the monetary system". regards Andi

Yes fractional Reserve Banking does its contribution, no doubt about that. But once a credit is paid back, this money cease to exist again. regards Andi

Because the pricing based on supply and demand, productivity etc. also takes place when there is e.g. goldstandard money and an, at least economically, free society, as it was the case in Europe before WW I. Its the way prices (and also wages) are determined voluntarily in a free market. Its also a way to determine what should be produced and how much, or if anything should be produced at all. Centralized planning does not work because this pricing mechanisms are absent. Even the Sowjetunion had to use data from the US in order to have a clue how much and what should be produced. Responsible for the increased volume of money is the state, respectively the Central Bank. Who else? You and me are not allowed to print money. If I print money for my benefit, I go to jail. If the state prints money for its benefit, its economic policy. The news about this topic, especially debt and inflation, are full of lies. If enough people understood how this system really worked, there would be tumult within days. At least in Europe, if they tell that inflation is xx percent, they tell that e.g. gas is responsible, gas is the booster that causes inflation. This is a lie. Given the same supply and demand, rising gas prices are just an indication that inflation slammed real economics. Interesting: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/march/05/arizona-challenges-the-fed-s-money-monopoly/ regards Andi

I seriously doubt there is a way out without pain. Central Banking policy creates a massive distortion of the whole economy, massive misinvestments, high public expenditure quota, insane debt of any kind, many artificially animated bubbles. This cannot last forever. For shure it is the best strategy to make an environment where real companies create real jobs and real productivity, this is what President Trump tries. In Europe politicians still pretend that everything works fine - however I enjoy watching their fear whenever some reality infiltrates their brains. Its at least some show for all the money regards Andi

Inflation is defined as an increase of the volume of money. Means a bigger amount of money chasing the same number of goods. This effect is seen as rising prices. Of course there are other reasons why prices change, such as less or increased demand, improvement of productivity etc. But all these effects are effects of the free market, and have nothing to do with inflation. Inflation must be considered robbery as soon as it is applied intentionally to influence economy. This is the case both with Central Banking and this so-called Modern Money Theory. The latter is even more careless. And this influence is huge: The Dollar lost more than 90% of its value during the last decades. This equivalent was directly transferred to the state and to close-state institutions. Nevertheless the national debt of the US is unprecedented high. If thats not robbery - what is it? regards Andi

So do you see any upper limit for the national deficit, given that a currency is not tied to anything and there is enough freedom? Shure, a society can handle a certain amount of inflation. But this does not alter the fact that inflation is robbery. A society can also handle a certain amount of crime and terror. Nevertheless it is not a wise idea to induce a certain amount of crime and terror and claim this is necessary to keep a society functional. And what this means in reality is, that this "not debt" is paid back via inflation, and has an impact on everybody. Or more clearly, since inflation is robbery, this debt is paid back through robbery. It does not get better because its claimed its just a little robbery that can be handled by a "free" society. How free is a society thats constantly robbed? Which brings me back to my first question: Do you see any upper limit for national dept? regards Andi

I did bring arguments that MMT is wrong, and for evidence just have a look at Venezuela or the Sowjetunion. So I might suggest that you bring forward some arguments for this theory, not only claims such as debt is not really debt and can be paid using the printing press. I am pretty curious how this should work in reality, when you either tell the creditors that they cannot expect any money back, or destroy the value of money when printing the debt. What part of anything either I or Nima have said disagrees with that? In none of the videos have we made so far, we haven't discussed the ethics of way money is created, we have only discussed the function. You can't "waste" money when you have the ability to infinitely create it. So obviously you agree with what I wrote in above quote. Just to repeat the example with the car once more: I give you 30.000 Dollar, freshly printed, and take your car. Now I tax you til you have paid back this 30.000 Dollar. But its invain, because meanwhile I printed another 5 billion Dollar for welfare and the military and the environment to buy votes. Again I tax you for this new debt, but its invain cause meanwhile..... So its pretty clear what a waste of money means. The more money is wasted the more the productive are enslaved. The more money is printed the more the bank pauperises all citizens. This MMT blanks out very basic facts about inflation and just claims that debt is not debt, i.e. claims that nobody who holds government bonds expects any interest, or can at least resell those bonds and get his money back. And this is simply wrong. regards Andi

He, he, I had the same attitude towards the EU when there was the vote for Austria wether to join or not I really hoped that the EU would restrain those idiots here that call themselves politicians. Lesson learned - it got worse regards Andi

I already adressed the central principle of the MMT and it is obvious that it is dead wrong. Or am I only allowed to post here if I stick to the wrong premises of a wrong theory? Money is made by those wo work productively. The so-called power to create money out of nothing is in fact the power to enslave others: Lets say I buy your car. So I simply print the money for this and hand it over to you, and I drive away with your car. Thats fine for me, but you, on the other hand, have to work for the debt for the money I printed and bought your car with. In other words, you work for the value of the money I bought your car with, or, you work for my ability to betray you. Such is the nature of the power to create money out of nothing. regards Andi

Shure. But always keep in mind the reason why they installed a central banking system: The state can borrow any amount of money, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. The state can install a welfare system and claim it does not do any harm, because the money spent adds to the debt that future generations will have to pay. The state buys votes with that money. The state can declare war, and the only winners of war are the bank and the military sector. So why should they ever stop printing? They create troubles that some unknown people in the future will have to deal with. In Austria we had Bruno Kreisky in the 70´ies, he was a poster socialist, and he was the first one who increased the national debt enormously. Today people still vote for the socialist party, dreaming of the "good old days". Unfortunately they have no clue that today they are paying taxes for the debt of the "good old days", and thats one of the reasons why prosperity today is less. First, it takes some time til the money hits real economy. Huge amounts of money are held up in the air by e.g. climate bonds and in the financial system. Second, the official calculation of inflation is a fraud, because it takes into account only a few commodities. The artificial rise of the stock market whenever a central bank prints money is actually inflation, because this rise is not really backed up by any improvements or greater output of the companies itself. It is just a bubble that can collapse any second. Third, the new money enters the market from above, meaning those close to banks get the money first, and invest e.g. in property. So when the prices for property rise because of that, making them unavailable for the average citizen, this is inflation, but its not taken into account by the official inflation calculation. Deflation is a problem only for those who have debt. Inflation makes it easier to repay debt, deflation makes it harder. Since the central bank system is tailored for the needs of the state, as said before, the state (i.e., its citizens) is the biggest debtor ever. This is the reason why the state - literally - will do everthing to avoid deflation. If we had real money not controlled by the state, or a goldstandard, deflation would not cause that much problems. I never heard anyone complaining about sinking prices. It serves the purpose of honesty. It is an outright fraud to waste money and thus enslave the next three, or even more, generations. Its all the socialist gibberish form equal opportunities and social justice. What chances and which justice will the next generation find, when they have to deliver 60 or 80% of their income to the state? Just for the reason that some lunatics want to appear in history as the builders of an "United Europe" - while they are actually destroying it. regards Andi

Hello and welcome

You do not need to accept any premises, and you do not need to accept UBP The universe does not accept the premises we impose on it, mammals do not accept the premises we impose on them, mathematics does not care about our set of premises. He who uses premises enables himself to say something valid, measured against reality, about a topic. Thats it regards Andi

Yes, they create the interest out of nothing, i.e., the Central bank fixes the key interest rate. The bank does not have to work to pay anything, because we are the debtors, and not the bank Thats what this whole fraudulent and exploitative Central bank system is about: The Central bank swings the baton and the citizens must p(l)ay. It serves only the state. The state and the Central bank thus can control and especially extract as much money as they can out of the productive work of the citizens. regards Andi

Well, some years ago they found out that 90 or even 95 percent of all matter is completely unknown to us. They call it "dark matter", and there is even such a strange thing as "dark energy". But this does not make astronomy an ideology. Cause if this unknown something with certain characteristics is considered, predictions are valid. Of course this does not mean that all predictions can be made, but it does mean that there is still a lot to do for future generations of astronomers and physicists. All knowledge is preliminary, and every serious scientist knows that. Premises are never arbitrary. A premise in mathematics is that parallels never cross. One premise Ayn Rand made was, "existence exists". Both premises can be used (they do not have to be used, they can be used) to describe reality as long as there is no proof for the opposite. There are smart guys who make any kind of premises, explicitly not observed in reality, and they make perfect logical theories - but for shure they do not describe reality. Regarding morality, we shure can not expect a "hard" theory or science as e.g. mathematics or physics are. So shure it is impossible to choose not to use the physical law of gravity. Even if we build an airplane we have to consider this law very well. But of course we can choose not to use UPB or any other moral theory. But I mean thats the point: If there was a moral theory we were not free not to choose, and we had to obey like the law of gravity - there would not be any need for a moral theory. And there would be no need for free will. Usually evolution never invents behaviour that is unnecessary. regards Andi

Greece cheatet with its budget to join the EU, everbyody knew that already back then. The politicians pretended not to see it because they wanted Greece to join, backed up by Goldmann Sachs who made another perfect deal. The whole point of this MMT is that there is no need to pay back money borrowed from the FED (or any other Central Bank). And as already said, yes its true that never all the money can be paid back, because if, there would be no more money left. Fiat money is debt, and when all debts are paid, no money exists any more. But it is wrong to conclude that this debt does not exist in reality, or only exists in a computer. Public debt, national and external, is held by real persons expecting interest. China holds 1,2 trillion Dollar of US government bonds. It would be very interesting to tell China, well guys, come on, thats no real debt. We won´t repay one more single Cent from now on. The argument, that a Central Bank can print the money, and repay debt, is true, but that does not mean that nobody pays for it. If debt is paid with the printing press, inflation does the job that is normally done by taxes. You need no hyperinflation to reduce the value of money, any inflation does that exactly to its percentage. Hyperinflation only shows it very obviously: If somebody has 3 million mark in his pushcart and several billions at home, according MMT there is no shortage of the private sector, right? But the sheer numbers do not count, because if 1 loaf of bread costs 3 million there actually is a shortage of the private sector. And yes the unavailability of goods play an important role, but this role can never be replaced with money. And here we have the reason why any money given to Greece is waisted - they only consume money on debt, but are not productive enough to match the value of the Euro. Paying debt with the printing press, i.e. with inflation, even with only 1 or 2 percent, is very comfortable for a state, because most people don´t notice. Nevertheless this adds over the years, and is in fact deprivation. regards Andi

Thats what is claimed in the video, and thats what was already wrong in first one, see my posts there. My answer was exactly about this topic, and why this socialistic idea does not work in practice. regards Andi

Some facts to Greece: The aim of less than 3% new debt was never reached in Greece (and many other EU countries). Meanwhile Greece received 248 billions Euro as help to restart economics.(Remember, population in Greece is only 11 million). Greece is a corrupt state ever since, if you want to buy property its not even shure who is the right owner because of a lack of land registry. The truth is that Greece is an oligarchy, reigned by a few families such as the Varoufakis or Onassis. So all the money vanished somewhere, it was never, or only to a small extent, used for economic investment. So it was not any kind of misterious austerity, and it never was the lack of money that keeps Greece to the bottom. Its is keeping a whole country on welfare that worsens things - economy in Greece has declined over the last years. This is no Greece bashing, I love Greece and been there many times. But as usual, socialism does never good to anybody. Yes Germany has a surplus in exports. But: More or less all southern countries in Europe borrow crazy amounts of cheap money from the EZB (European central bank) and pay with that money. And the one held liable for this debt is - correct, Germany (and a few others, but Germany ist the greatest economy). So thats the kind of Vodoo economics that is ment to create a united Europe: One member produces, the others lend money from the one who produces, and the very same one will have to pay all the bills at a day most likely not too far away. So all what holds this construction together ist the believe that someday, when Alice and the Wonderland will be real, the debtors like Italy and Spain and Greece and France etc. etc. will pay their debt. This will never happen. And it does not, as mentioned in the video, help if one double or triple the amount of money. The 3% rule was never achieved by most countries anyway. The money is consumed, it just vanishes, in the same way as the number of recipients in a welfare state is growing and growing, the debt is rising and rising. regards Andi

So don´t worry. There never was austerity and budget surplus in Greece since they got rid of the Ottoman Empire. But Greece went bankrupt for 3 or 4 times then. regards Andi

At first, it is standard in science to make an educated guess and work with that. For instance, the first models of the atomic nucleus (mainly nothing with some bowls in the middle and some other bowls orbiting around) were wrong, but good enough to work with and led to further knowledge and more accurate models. As long as an even simplified model describes reality it is valid. So since we do not have a proof if there is free will or not, we can assume there is and work with that. If that leads to an accurate description this is valid. But lets go to practice: For shure there are bad theories that lead to very, very dark places. Just have a look at Hinduism, where it is the fate of the Dalits to clean latrines for all their life cause they have to purge for sins in an earlier life. O man... So why not try UPB and see wether this theory leads to similar results? I bet it will not. So why do you call UPB a bad theory? You are right, my example is not about morality. It is about the knowledge of truth and falsehood. Any valid theory about anything has to describe reality. Any theory of gravity has to consider the premise that a stone tends to move to the center of the earth. Now Einstein explained that its not God who moves that stone, but rather a curvature of spacetime, generated by mass, that directs mass to behave in a certain way. Accordingly, the premise that one should not murder has to be considered by any theorie of moral. Now its not necessary any more to refer to God to claim that not to murder is good, but it can deduced in a logically consistent way. Given the fact that there are billions of people on earth who believe in Gods, and given that religions are arbitrary, meaning that religion can (and does) literally make people belief in anything, a scientific theory of morality is as superior to religion as is Einsteins theory to the believe in witchcraft. And yes, the world needs such a theory as much as the world needed enlightenment and the scientific method. regards Andi

Of course you can choose not to use UBP. I choose not to use the quantum theorie every day cause I do not understand it. What I cannot avoid is the consequence of not using any. Regarding UBP (or any other moral guide) it might end in wrong or less than perfect decisions. Regarding quantum theorie I might end without Nobel prize. No theorie is internaly falsifiable. If a theorie is internaly falsifiable, means there are logical contradictions, this theorie is simply wrong. A theorie can only be falsified when applied on reality. If there is anything in reality a theorie predicts wrong, then it is falsified. regards Andi

I guess you refer to this. But here you contradict yourself: First you say, that the assumption of being morally responsible should not be made without the evidence for free will. Therefore Stefan has to fight against determinism. And then you say, that its irrelevant in any case, because even a Terminator killer robot, deterministically programmed for killing, should be removed from society, and it does not matter wether there is free will or not. So you blame Stefans theorie for not taking into account the problem of free will, while you say the free will does not matter anyway. There is no heavenly power that punishes you. And its not a sin not to step brake when appropriate. If you do not step brakes when appropriate, the law of physics will deteriorate your ability to live. regards Andi

The fact that most people hate being corrected or do not want to change their opinion is not a contradiction to that they could do better if they did. You are driving a car on the highway, your co-driver shouts "brake", because he sees a danger that you do not see. Your life needs the distinction between truth and falsehood. And in that particular case there is even no time for debate. Yes one could fill an encyclopedia with this topic. But if the individual is not responsible for his action - who is? If you do not step brake in the above example, cause truth and falsehood do not matter anyhow, and you crash, whom do you hold responsible? regards Andi

Wait a second, we are still far away from marriage All I say is that one´s own behavior of being nervous, talking nonsens etc.etc.does not have that disastrous effect as most men think. Yes there is a sort of woman who will laugh at you, its the sort who will fall for macho behaviour and finical coolness, and after three weeks of "relationship" she shouts, "But he has beaten me. But I love him and he loves me and I will change him." Never works. Just put it the other way round: There is a lady who was never conspicious to you. You realize that she behaves different when you are around. You find her nervous and catch some sneaky glances of her, that just last a bit too long, and she turns away suddenly when she realized that you realized. You have seen her behaving normal in the presence of other men, its just you that changes things. (Men are not very good in perceiving this signs, and women tend to avoid such situations completely, so it happens rarely this way round). So would you say, oh my god, I will never invite her for dinner, because I am afraid that she will spill the soup across my trousers? I can not even think of getting to know her, because she is weak and nervous? Of course not Because you know she is not weak and nervous. And you know that she is interested in you. regards Andi

Oh man. To have shaky knees just watching her is the most honest compliment a man can ever give. And she knows that. (Unless she waits for a Hollywood hero. But the fact she smiled at him does not indicate that). Yes, sooner or later that should calm a bit, of course I rather do not tell how I met my wife the first time, now 28 years ago There is nothing you can do wrong - attack

Yes I am shure there is, and I am pretty shure that she knows about her effect on you. Do not be afraid, women find it complimentary to make a man nervous just by their presence. Go ahead and ask her for a date. You can not do wrong, the only thing that could happen is she says "no". But I bet she will not. regards Andi