Dear Yuyutsu,

"Just to clarify, I do not recommend suicide, I just left this example for those who do not believe in reincarnation"
But you seem to have failed to notice it would only make sense for those who do believe in reincarnation.

"What I do recommend instead is that one should not die with debts, then they will not be born with debts the next time around where even bankruptcy/insolvency would not help."
So you really do think you're liable for debts incurred before you were born!

So how do yo think this dying with debts thing works? Does it count if your assets are subsequently sold to pay your debts? What if your creditors sold life insurance for that purpose? What if there's no specific life insurance but the risk of your dying before you can repay them is priced into the interest rate of the loan?

To me it looks an awful lot like a scam by the rich to justify their oppression of the poor by holding them liable for other people's debts.

Hoarding real tangible wealth is generally a bad thing because it prevents other people from accessing it. However, saving up money is usually a good thing because the total amount of money is not fixed; the less you spend, the more others can spend without it increasing inflation. Although if others also refuse to spend, it becomes a bad thing.

Currency does not represent goods. Up until the 1970s it represented gold, but thankfully we'll never make that mistake again. And the total value of assets greatly exceeds (but also depends upon) the amount of money in circulation.

Dear Aidan,

If you caused anguish to others by borrowing their money and not returning it in one way or another, if you took from others more than you gave, then you must eventually face a similar situation from the other end. Unlike the laws of man, the law of karma, just as the laws of physics, cannot be by-passed by clever accountancy tricks.

However, as I'm aware of others who don't believe the above, to them all I can suggest is to count together their gifts which they received by birth, including their body, subtract all their liabilities, and if the balance for them is negative then they don't need to remain, but could instead opt out. If however they choose to stay, then they shouldn't complain of not being responsible for their situation.

You happen to look at this law of nature as a scam by the rich, but it could just as well be a scam by the poor, saying: "if you take more than your share in this life, then you will have less than your share in another, so better give it all away". In fact, it is not a scam by anyone, but simply something that sages observed long before the use of money and has vast applications that aren't even financial or economic.

You claim that inflation is caused by hoarding, but inflation could never occur if money represented real-goods.

That money is not tied down to actual-goods is very wrong and sad and it will blow up one day in our face, making many of us destitute in a moment. Nobody became richer and happier just by counting more 0's in their pocket while the actual amount and quality of goods and services around has in fact been declining. Every person who sits in an office shuffling paper (or electronic bits) in their work-life to manipulate ever more complex financial schemes, is plainly unproductive, wasting petrol to get there and electricity for the office's air-conditioning, so the overall happiness would only increase had they stayed at home instead, say on the dole.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no law of karma in nature. Human nature may sometimes make it appear that there is one, but in reality many people are innocent victims no matter how much you blame their plight on their actions in a past life.

Why should the decision whether to opt out be contingent on a gifts-liabilities calculation? And why shouldn't people complain when their situation is controlled by others?

Would the rich even listen to a next-life explanation of why they should help the poor? A victim-blaming excuse for the rich to do nothing seems far likelier.

I didn't claim that inflation's caused by hoarding. Although now that you mention it, hoarding of commodities can cause inflation. But hoarding of money is deflationary, which is good when it counteracts inflation, but bad when it causes stagnation.

"That money is not tied down to actual-goods is very wrong and sad and it will blow up one day in our face, making many of us destitute in a moment."
THE TRUTH IS ALMOST THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM!
Trying to tie money down to actual goods is what caused the Great Depression.

When the amount of money in circulation's based on the present value of goods, it harms our ability to invest in the things that boost future productivity. Whereas without that restriction, the government is able to intervene to keep the economy productive.

"Nobody became richer and happier just by counting more 0's in their pocket while the actual amount and quality of goods and services around has in fact been declining"
Some people who were in debt got richer and happier as their debt was inflated away. I'd be surprised if that had never ever coincided with a goods and services decline, though it's an unusual situation.

"Every person who sits in an office shuffling paper (or electronic bits) in their work-life to manipulate ever more complex financial schemes, is plainly unproductive,"
On the contrary, the work they do is quite productive. Although disruption (removing the need to do that work) could sometimes boost productivity more.

Dear Aidan,

You are correct when you say that "many people are innocent victims", but that's a statement about people (which would also be true for dogs, cows, etc.), rather than about us. It's just incidental that currently we temporarily happen to identify as people.

Nobody claimed that the law of karma applies to nature: what applies in nature are the laws of physics, such as Newton's famous "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". Karma is the equivalent of Newton's law in our subjective experience. Simplified, when we do something good we desire a reward and when we do something bad we desire to suffer, so if our desires are not fulfilled within our current lifetime (in your words, because "Human nature may sometimes make it appear"), then they drive us to identify with a foetus/newborn in a situation where those can be fulfilled.

Q. Why should the decision whether to opt out be contingent on a gifts-liabilities calculation?
A. For those who consider themselves to be humans, this is human nature: humans like to enjoy and humans don't like to suffer, so do your maths, then decide whether to take that package or leave it.

Q. And why shouldn't people complain when their situation is controlled by others?
A. Because complaining doesn't get you anywhere: you cannot change the past. Moreover, it dis-empowers you into believing as-if you are powerless. Others may perhaps have certain control over your body, but it was your own choice to identify with that body.

Q. Would the rich even listen to a next-life explanation of why they should help the poor?
A. The rich-and-wise would listen, the rich-and-stupid would not. Similarly, the poor-and-wise would lovingly accept their situation and the poor-and-stupid would not. Interestingly, Jesus said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God", but I add that these respectively apply only to the poor-and-wise and the rich-and-stupid.

Dear Aidan,

<<Trying to tie money down to actual goods is what caused the Great Depression>>

How could banks collapse unless they failed to back up their depositors' money with actual goods?

The people of the time were speculating. They did not use what they actually had as securities, but rather the airy-fairy profits which they hoped to gain.

<<Whereas without that restriction, the government is able to intervene to keep the economy productive.>>

Whether or not it is OK for governments to intervene in the economy is a discussion for another day, but on the assumption that it is OK, all they need is to levy taxes, openly. Cowards that they are, they collect "inflation tax" instead, so that most people will not notice the theft.

<<Some people who were in debt got richer and happier as their debt was inflated away>>

Yes, in the short term, but it made them feel guilty and to, consciously or otherwise, desire to suffer from it.

Television SBS1 PBS Newshour did a review promotion on several latest movies up for 2016 Oscars Award nomination. Mad Max was the first movie mentioned, second movie mentioned was Leonardo Di Caprio movie.

As Mad Max was being shown, PBS narrator said Mad Max “is something we're all trying to avoid”. “We're all trying to avoid”, as though Humanity's future direction leads humanity towards a Mad Max scenario.

When Genesis god returns from that non-literal god's day of rest, which I say is a length of time, that God's return is the bible “end of time”; “Jesus' “Judgement Day”, Jewish' “Apocalypse”; and several other titles in several other religions.
The problem with humanity is that humanity becomes out of balance with nature.

My point being that Hollywood movie stories are bible replacement stories. Hollywood top movie star actors and actresses are modern day apostle bible replacements, warning of the end of time god returns from god's day of rest.
The many space alien invading earth movies: War of Worlds; Independence Day; Mars Attack; Battle Ship. Several television series: Under The Dome; V. There are the many: virus Apocalypse stories; Zombie Apocalypse; meteorites end of the world movies.

Stories that don't often happen are economic crash horror stories. In all the media stories, very few detailed history's of economic declines become media stories.
American 1860 to 1865 Civil War sometimes mentioned as having to be about slavery, was in my past history media suggested to me' causes had to do with States rights to print their own currency and currency forgery. Trading goods between states paid for by whatever currency was trusted. Combined states federal government wanted to use the then called green back currency notes. Southern States wanted their own currency independent from the Northern States. My assumptions are, northern states were industrious while southern states were trading goods with Europe as cotton was sold to Europe, Europe having a large population to clothe.