"Your" Money & Taxation

[Age]

Boring. Google the things I said to Google and you will learn about money supply. Or bullshit me like a whiny child and see how much of a fuck I give.

Or, just ask you, How much of a fuck do you give? (whatever that actually means)

[FlashDangerpants]

meh.

[Age]

meh.

If that is supposedly how much you really give, then you could have just given that from the outset.

If you were to just open up somewhat and be honest, then you would learn far more than you have learned so far from google. But since you believe you could not be wrong, are you really able to learn anymore anyway?

[FlashDangerpants]

Look, I told you already I know it is a waste of time trying to explain anything meaningful to you. I gave you the information for you to inform yourself on the matter at hand. As always you emerge from the experience without any new understanding, but as alaways you have claimed that you doin't need it.

You aren't getting new effort from me. Fuck off.

[Age]

Look, I told you already I know it is a waste of time trying to explain anything meaningful to you. I gave you the information for you to inform yourself on the matter at hand. As always you emerge from the experience without any new understanding, but as alaways you have claimed that you doin't need it.

You aren't getting new effort from me. Fuck off.

As I made it clear earlier, I already understand that you believe that you could not be wrong. Listening to you more now I emerge from this experience with more understanding that you seriously believe that you could not be wrong.

By the way if you believe learning anything regarding money is meaningful, then I would suggest that you a great deal to learn about Life and living.

[FlashDangerpants]

Look, I told you already I know it is a waste of time trying to explain anything meaningful to you. I gave you the information for you to inform yourself on the matter at hand. As always you emerge from the experience without any new understanding, but as alaways you have claimed that you doin't need it.

You aren't getting new effort from me. Fuck off.

As I made it clear earlier, I already understand that you believe that you could not be wrong. Listening to you more now I emerge from this experience with more understanding that you seriously believe that you could not be wrong.

By the way if you believe learning anything regarding money is meaningful, then I would suggest that you a great deal to learn about Life and living.

Then don't argue with me about how money is created. That way you don't have to learn anything you don't want to, but you don't have to defend a position of ignorance against a thing you don't understand and refuse to learn about.

[Age]

Look, I told you already I know it is a waste of time trying to explain anything meaningful to you. I gave you the information for you to inform yourself on the matter at hand. As always you emerge from the experience without any new understanding, but as alaways you have claimed that you doin't need it.

You aren't getting new effort from me. Fuck off.

As I made it clear earlier, I already understand that you believe that you could not be wrong. Listening to you more now I emerge from this experience with more understanding that you seriously believe that you could not be wrong.

By the way if you believe learning anything regarding money is meaningful, then I would suggest that you a great deal to learn about Life and living.

Then don't argue with me about how money is created.

Why not?

Your so called attempts at "arguments" are obviously unsound and invalid.

Money is obviously created from printing presses and not just from by writing figures on pieces of paper.

The simplicity and obviousness of this speaks for itself.

That way you don't have to learn anything you don't want to, but you don't have to defend a position of ignorance against a thing you don't understand and refuse to learn about.

From my perspective it is you that has been so misinformed, by your google searches, that it appears you still have quite a lot to learn about how money is created, although you believe otherwise.

Continually looking at me and trying to make out that it is me who does not understand, is ignorant, and does not want to learn is not putting your so called "arguments" forward at all.

All you are doing is looking at the person, and trying to put them down, instead of actually arguing against what I am saying. Supplying six year old newspaper articles is not arguing your point.

By doing this you are making it clearer to the readers that it really is you who does not understand, is ignorant, or really does not want to learn more and/or anew.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I made it clear earlier, I already understand that you believe that you could not be wrong. Listening to you more now I emerge from this experience with more understanding that you seriously believe that you could not be wrong.

By the way if you believe learning anything regarding money is meaningful, then I would suggest that you a great deal to learn about Life and living.

Then don't argue with me about how money is created.

Why not?

Your so called attempts at "arguments" are obviously unsound and invalid.

Money is obviously created from printing presses and not just from by writing figures on pieces of paper.

The simplicity and obviousness of this speaks for itself.

That would seem obvious if you are deeply shallow, but much less so if you are not. You can't explain monetary inflation if you stick with that becasue physical printed money is only a factor in extreme cases such as Zimbabwe and Venzuela, but you can observe that over time the prices of stuff you buy with the printed money seems to change and things become more expensive somehow, which happens everywhere. Worse, as less money is going to be printed throughout your lifetime, you will not be able to explain why there is more money even though there is less printed cash than there used to be.

You have not put any thought in, and you are not open to the thought others have put in on your behalf to save you the effort.

That way you don't have to learn anything you don't want to, but you don't have to defend a position of ignorance against a thing you don't understand and refuse to learn about.

From my perspective it is you that has been so misinformed, by your google searches, that it appears you still have quite a lot to learn about how money is created, although you believe otherwise.

Continually looking at me and trying to make out that it is me who does not understand, is ignorant, and does not want to learn is not putting your so called "arguments" forward at all.

All you are doing is looking at the person, and trying to put them down, instead of actually arguing against what I am saying. Supplying six year old newspaper articles is not arguing your point.

By doing this you are making it clearer to the readers that it really is you who does not understand, is ignorant, or really does not want to learn more and/or anew.

[/quote]
I didn't even tell you to look up anything very difficult. I kept it nice and simple to give you a chance to exceed my expectations of you. I didn't tell you to explain quantitative easing, nor the meaning of MV = PQ, because that would be unfair, those things being far beyond any reasonable expectation of your talents.

All I did was let you know that money as it is actually used, is created by fractional reserve, and that this is not hard to understand with a small amount of effort. It is not. You and "philosopher" not getting that, and not putting in this small effort, is not unexpected.

You don't need to argue with me about this stuff. It costs you nothing to just not be interested in it and therefore not argue about it. You have had that choice from the beginnning.

[Age]

Then don't argue with me about how money is created.

Why not?

Your so called attempts at "arguments" are obviously unsound and invalid.

Money is obviously created from printing presses and not just from by writing figures on pieces of paper.

The simplicity and obviousness of this speaks for itself.

That would seem obvious if you are deeply shallow, but much less so if you are not.

Are you ever able to concentrate on the issue I am discussing, instead of concentrating on ME?

You can't explain monetary inflation if you stick with that becasue physical printed money is only a factor in extreme cases such as Zimbabwe and Venzuela, but you can observe that over time the prices of stuff you buy with the printed money seems to change and things become more expensive somehow, which happens everywhere.

What has inflation got to with anything I have been talking about?

Why do you human beings try to complicate the simple?

What has been in question? The creation of money, ONLY.

I have already explained how money is created, so there is no need to add any other matters into what is truly very simple and easy to understand.

Money, itself, is created in printing presses.

If this is wrong, then how and WHY?

By the way, I do not want to explain "monetary inflation" because I do not care about it. I do not even want to discuss it. "monetary inflation" has had nothing at all to do with what I have been discussing, so your presumed ignorant point of view that I can not explain "monetary inflation" is just that; an ignorant point of view.

Worse, as less money is going to be printed throughout your lifetime, you will not be able to explain why there is more money even though there is less printed cash than there used to be.

You regularly start making assumptions and believing things that are so far off track and far from reality that you start talking about completly unnecessary and disillusioned issues.

You own words; "there will be LESS but I will not be able to explain why there is MORE money" speaks for itself.

Hopefully, you are able to see the obvious contradiction and wrongness here?

Besides the fact that that does not even need explaining, I could explain what it is that you are meaning and trying to say, actually explain how that works, as well as also explain why that brain is working in overload trying to prove itself is right, that it says things that are so obviously WRONG and nonsensical.

You have not put any thought in, and you are not open to the thought others have put in on your behalf to save you the effort.

Once again, you look at the person and try and put them down, instead of just focusing on looking at the actual points being made and staying concentrated on them.

It will be discovered that I am continually thinking far more into this that you could not even yet imagine and have obviously not yet even noticed.

That way you don't have to learn anything you don't want to, but you don't have to defend a position of ignorance against a thing you don't understand and refuse to learn about.

From my perspective it is you that has been so misinformed, by your google searches, that it appears you still have quite a lot to learn about how money is created, although you believe otherwise.

Continually looking at me and trying to make out that it is me who does not understand, is ignorant, and does not want to learn is not putting your so called "arguments" forward at all.

All you are doing is looking at the person, and trying to put them down, instead of actually arguing against what I am saying. Supplying six year old newspaper articles is not arguing your point.

By doing this you are making it clearer to the readers that it really is you who does not understand, is ignorant, or really does not want to learn more and/or anew.

I didn't even tell you to look up anything very difficult.

Are you at all aware just how blindingly obvious it is that you actually believe wholeheartedly that you really are, by far, far more superior, smarter, and intelligent than I am or ever could be?

I kept it nice and simple to give you a chance to exceed my expectations of you.

That over six year old little newspaper article was that 'simple' that could actually support my point more than it ever could yours. But you would never be able to see and rexognize this because, to you, nothing I say could ever overshadow what you say. To you, I am always wrong and just to ignorant to ever be even able to learn what you know, correct?

I didn't tell you to explain quantitative easing, nor the meaning of MV = PQ, because that would be unfair, those things being far beyond any reasonable expectation of your talents.

Are you capable of looking at the actual issue only, and not attempting to put me down?

Is your superiority complex that strong that you are completely incapable of doing the former only?

Do you feel that I am lucky that "you didn't tell me to do some thing"?

All I did was let you know that money as it is actually used, is created by fractional reserve, and that this
is not hard to understand with a small amount of effort. It is not. You and "philosopher" not getting that, and not putting in this small effort, is not unexpected.

And you are not understanding how 'money' is really created.

Have a think about it; what you are talking about is not money itself being created, but some thing else. Let us see if you can work out what it is.

The answer should come very easily to someone like you who believes that they are so knowledgeable about things like this.

You have missed the whole point all along. The reason for this is your belief in that I know absolutely nothing about what you believe you know, and that I am incapable of learning those things, which you believe you know and understand so well.

You don't need to argue with me about this stuff.

This is one way of attempting to get out of arguing, which obviously only a person who was not sure of them self would try and do. This, by the way, is just one of your many attempts. Coming up is two more examples of your many attempts of trying to getting others not to discuss and argue with you.

You really do come across as trying your hardest to seemingly always trying to get out of just putting up arguments support your already held beliefs and assumptions.

It costs you nothing to just not be interested in it and therefore not argue about it.

That is one.

You have had that choice from the beginnning.

This is two

You started by saying some thing that was obviously wrong. I have just pointed the wrongness of this out. But you believe otherwise.

You are the one who stated that you supposedly have no interest, but here you are not being able to let go, once again.

By the way, the more you concentrate on me, and try to put me down, then the more evidence you are providing me for how the brain will trick itself into believing things, like that it knows more than it actually does.

Are 'you' even capable of just focusing on the points I raise, and addressing them only, or will that brain not allow this and keep steering 'you' to look at me and bring me into the discussion?

We will wait and see.

[Sculptor]

Pro-capitalists make the claim your money is... your money.

But the monetary system is the domain of the state. Only the state can make money.
So in essense, what you're doing is to borrow money from the state.

You are prohibited from making your own money.

Then the pro-capitalists claim that your money is what you've earned through hard work, luck or inheritance and that the state should not "steal your money" through taxation.

But you cannot get money from anyone without a cooporation between humans.
Meaning that if you work in the fields, someone owns the fields and has to agree to give you money.

In any case the real owners of the money are the ones who own the land or resources. How did they get there? First-past-the-post principle.

I've never heard any good arguments why first-past-the-post is fair. And that's essentially what capitalism is all about.
The only ones in favor of first-past-the-post are the lucky ones who made it first.

Here's the real question for you:

How is it fair that the big corporations are allowed to exploit the labourers?
How is it fair that those with more money are allowed more a say in a democracy than those with less money?
(in the U.S. and just about any western democracy, money entitles you the right to be heard more often and be noticed).

What bad stuff would happen to a society that taxed the landowners and big corporations to make welfare for the common people?
What bad stuff would happen to a society that made any citizen (rich or poor) equal in democratic rights and equal rights to be noticed in a democratic discussion?

Of course the big corporations and rich folks would simply move abroad. And that's why I think that any big corporation should be owned by the State and licensed to private companies. This way no companies can take all the resources and the entire company and move abroad.

Have you looked into MMT?

[Sculptor]

That would seem obvious if you are deeply shallow, but much less so if you are not. You can't explain monetary inflation if you stick with that becasue physical printed money is only a factor in extreme cases such as Zimbabwe and Venzuela, but you can observe that over time the prices of stuff you buy with the printed money seems to change and things become more expensive somehow, which happens everywhere. Worse, as less money is going to be printed throughout your lifetime, you will not be able to explain why there is more money even though there is less printed cash than there used to be.

Obviously it is not JUST printed. It is also generated on a computer screen by banks through licence with the issuing authority which is the sovereign state.
This does not change the fact that all money is MADE by the state and when issued counts as government debt.
When people say they "made $1000" they did not make money- what they did is take temporary control of money previously made by the state.
In the last 40 years the myth that the government only has YOUR money is a ruse by the rich to downplay the power of the state, to chide it for having a deficit and for the private sector to have an increasingly powerful control over resources to the detriment of public provision of infrastructure, and to lower taxation.
In actuality government deficit is a state to be wished for since it represents the private sector's surplus. and government surplus is unused capacity which injures the state and the fortunes of ordinary people like you and me that rely more on publicly provided resources, such as roads, police, schools, social services, public health - all of which has been cut by the neoliberal myth of monetary theory of Friedman and political experimenters such as Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have already explained how money is created, so there is no need to add any other matters into what is truly very simple and easy to understand.

Money, itself, is created in printing presses.

If this is wrong, then how and WHY?

If you have money in your pocket, that was created in a printing press.
If you have money in your bank account it was not.
There is more money in bank accounts than has ever been printed.

If you has done as I told you and looked up M0, M1 and M2 money, you would know that. Instead you are still bullshitting me.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously it is not JUST printed. It is also generated on a computer screen by banks through licence with the issuing authority which is the sovereign state.
This does not change the fact that all money is MADE by the state and when issued counts as government debt.

Nope. Here's the Bank of England explaining that the state does not create most of the money in circulation.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowled ... ey-created

Money is more than banknotes and coins. If you have a bank account, you can use what’s in it to buy things, typically with a debit card. Because you can buy things with your bank account, we think of this as money even though it’s not cash.

Therefore, if you borrow £100 from the bank, and it credits your account with the amount, ‘new money’ has been created. It didn’t exist until it was credited to your account.

This also means as you pay off the loan, the electronic money your bank created is “deleted” – it no longer exists. You haven’t got richer or poorer. You might have less money in your bank account but your debts have gone down too. So essentially, banks create money, not wealth.

Banks create around 80% of money in the economy as electronic deposits in this way. In comparison, banknotes and coins only make up three percent. Finally, most banks have accounts with us at the Bank of England, allowing them to transfer money back and forth. This is called electronic central bank money, or reserves.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[Sculptor]

Obviously it is not JUST printed. It is also generated on a computer screen by banks through licence with the issuing authority which is the sovereign state.
This does not change the fact that all money is MADE by the state and when issued counts as government debt.

Nope. Here's the Bank of England explaining that the state does not create most of the money in circulation.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowled ... ey-created

You are simply not paying attention.
I said it is created on a computer by banks. The BoE oversees this with bank rules.