*How can any person believe they are 'worth' a million dollars a year (and much, much more) when there are millions of children starving for want of one dollar?*

Grim, you are confusing two entirely separate issues here, which
is not unusual for you. If an employee at one of our major banks
declined the salary offered, do you think there would be less starving
babies?

As a matter of interest, the Vatican owns several banks, but if they
were really concerned about starving babies, they might finally get
sensible about contraception.

Even you could sell your computer and save another couple of starving
babies. But you prefer to fool around on OLO. So those are your
priorities, when we look at the reality of it.

*Have you seriously not noticed there are a handful of people in the world who collect interest *

Grim, I have just shown you that millions upon millions of Australians benefit from banks collecting interest. They take it
from your left pocket, then put it back in your right pocket,
for when you retire. Those grey nomads cruising around Australia
in their caravans, just love their income cheques!

Well spotted Grim. I'm glad that someone here is able to follow Pericles' twists, turns, convolutions and obfuscation in order to spot his self-contradiction.

I'm not sure what point Pericles was trying to make when he wrote, "I'm equally sure you would freely accept that precisely the same observation could be made if you were sitting on a pile of gold ingots."

Of course I agree. Gold is also inherently worthless. Its actual monetary value is determined by its scarcity and is far more than its value as something that can be put to good use, particularly in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

---

I have no idea what bearing on the court case of 1969 the conviction in 1973 of Jerome Daly for failing to lodge tax returns in 1967 and 1968 was.

---

I note that Pericles has not further responded to my point about the US Government under President Abraham Lincoln printing its own money instead of mortgaging the future of the United States to private bankers. So presumably, Pericles concedes that it was a good idea.

So, if it was a good idea in war time, why not in peace time, also?

---

Pericles wrote, "North Dakota has a population about the same as Tasmania. ..."

It's interesting that a population growth pusher like Pericles can acknowledge that not having a massive population can be advantageous. Nevertheless, I don't see why larger states such as California cannot do the same as North Dakota.

---

Pericles wrote, "I dunno. Maybe they were opponents of fiat money, ..."

Or maybe the British bankers wanted to gouge the American colonists. The point remains that after the British bankers got their way, the colonies descended into economic chaos.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, a similar banking system helped the Japanese and Chinese economies to prosper (although obviously at a cost to the environment), so the claim of neo-liberal ideologues that governments reclaiming the right to create money from private banking cartels would automatically cause economic problems is not borne out by the evidence.

Not so fast, Grim.

>>So a debt is still money, but an 'obligation to repay' is...what? Not cash? Not debt?<<

You are suggesting that this contradicts:

“Once and for all, that wretched $100 does not turn into $357 of new cash"

The "obligation to repay" is the essential constraint that prevents a Bank from "routinely creating money it lent out of thin air", as daggett describes the process.

The fact that $100 does not turn into $357 of new cash is... a fact.

Both are in context therefore correct.

And daggett, you really must read your own posts sometime.

The gold/notes in the desert observation was to point out that in those circumstances they have equal value, which you appear to accept. So why make a fuss about them being banknotes in the first place?

>>I have no idea what bearing on the court case of 1969 the conviction in 1973 of Jerome Daly for failing to lodge tax returns in 1967 and 1968 was.<<

You introduced him. I didn't. The judge in this case simply pointed out the fatuous nature of his assertions – that you keep referring to – on the nature of finance.

I didn't answer the Lincoln question because his policies were a failure. He ran out of the money that he had printed against the government's credit, and couldn't print any more without borrowing.

So the government decided to revert to the tried-and-tested system.

Incidentally, if Lincoln had felt strongly about it, he had a veto he could have used. Why didn't he?

As for North Dakota, they are one day going to have to support all that new debt they are creating. So don't put them on too high a pedestal right at this moment.

>>maybe the British bankers wanted to gouge the American colonists<<

Changing the subject again, I notice.

If you want this to be a thread discussing the evils of Bankers, that's fine.

Go ahead.

Just don't try to force-fit the realities of profit-and-loss, balance sheets, lending and borrowing to suit your agenda.

Pericles, that was simple unadulterated bull. Of course it was a contradiction. Go back to your own link, (Wikipedia, fractional banking) and read the first paragraph after the table.
Let me quote the key sentences for you:
“Although no new money was physically created in addition to the initial $100 deposit, new commercial bank money is created through loans.”
“When the reserve rate is 20%, as in the example above, the maximum amount of total deposits that can be created is $500 and the maximum amount of commercial bank money that can be created is $400.”
And Yabby once again, IS the world. Since Yabby is making money out of interest, everyone must be.
I have no doubt the 'millions' of Australians would agree that the 2% they are getting on the $500 they squirrelled away in the Xmas club account, more than makes up for the 5 or 7% they are paying on their $300,000 mortgage. Currently, around 73% of Australian households are in debt. That means, they are paying, rather than receiving (net) interest.
“Grim, you are confusing two entirely separate issues here, which
is not unusual for you.”
You mean like confusing Super funds with bank deposits, Yabby? Yes, that would be really stupid, wouldn't it.
As I have pointed out before, there are only 2 ways of looking at real wealth. Either it is limited only by human imagination and innovation, or it is inextricably tied to resources and energy.
In the first instance, wealth is effectively infinite, so there can be no excuse for children starving; why would anyone deny them a small part of an infinite resource?
If, however, wealth is tied to resources, then it is strictly finite; in which case the bigger the slice of the pie one person takes, the less there is for everyone else.
As Gandhi so eloquently put it: “the rich must learn to live more simply, so the poor can simply live.”
As Pericles is fond of pointing out, it really isn't that complicated.

*Currently, around 73% of Australian households are in debt. *

You are quite correct Grim. For millions of Australians realise
that having cash in the bank means that the taxation office screws
them blind. For inflation takes a big chunk of any interest payments,
taxation, which does not allow for inflation, takes another chunk.

So Australians prefer to borrow, for good reasons. They buy an
investment property and negative gear it, so reducing taxation.
They buy shares on margin loans, anything to avoid being screwed
by the tax office not accepting the reality of inflation.

Despite all this, we can see by bank retail deposits that there
are still huge numbers of Australians, usually oldies who might
have inherited a bit, or sold some property, or earned more then
they spent, who hold bank retail deposits. An old invalid pensioner
mate of mine has his 80 grand squirreled away, left to him by his
mum, as he trusts no investment but his bank deposit book. Fair enough.

*You mean like confusing Super funds with bank deposits, Yabby?*

No Grim, confusing starving babies with commerce.

*As Gandhi so eloquently put it: “the rich must learn to live more simply, so the poor can simply live.”*

Gandi seemingly forgot the laws of nature. As Darwin pointed out,
far more individuals of any species will be created, then can ever
survive. There are good reasons why pairbonding evolved in humans,
for it gives a child two parents, to provide the resources to feed
the offspring. That is their role as parents.

Now even in Australia, people limit their offspring to how many they
can afford to feed. What you are saying is that bugger the laws
of nature, if I have 12 kids, you will happily feed the lot.

As Bob Geldrof found out, send boatloads of food, planeloads
of vaccines and no contraception, twenty years later you will have
twice as many mouths to feed.

Just for the record, Yabby, my goal has never been to convince you of my point of view. Rather, my goal has been to help you to demonstrate to all the readers at OLO just exactly what a kind, selfless and compassionate individual you are, and how valuable your insights are, not only to all Australians, but indeed to all Humanity.
BTW, Daggett and Fickle; I have started a thread in the General discussion area with the rather uninspiring title: Sentimental or Rational:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2956
I would appreciate your input on the question posed.