Swathes of Labour voters still unsure of party’s position on EU poll
New CNN Electoral Map: Hillary Clinton Drops Below 270
Exclusive: Labour on course for worst defeat since 1935
Tristram Hunt lays into Corbyn at Progress rally
Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking?
Finally one has to look at the usury issue, your early work mentioned Helmuth Kreutz and particularly the Late Magrit Kennedy’s work regarding the interest charge component in all goods, notably the 77% attributed to social housing in Kreutz´s native Germany. For sustainable economic development the new monetary model that has to emerge to bring our resource use habits within sustainable limits can not entertain usury. Exponential Physicist against Linear infinite Economist is the deruguer Google term to get into some interesting reading, As I know you already know Ellen, What will the future Money or rather monies look like. Bernard Leitaer is my guru on these things his web site is an excellent 101 of solutions offered for making money work as if people and the planet mattered. http://www.lietaer.com/ here is an excellent talk given by Bernard to one of the big Blockchain / Bitcoin conferences
And here is a Blog in which I provide a context ecologically in a dialogue I have been having with Clive Lord a founder member of the British green Party.
Roger G Lewis Roger G Lewis • 25 days ago
This is the really big question, not whether Money is all debt by definition or that Governments are the enablers of all true money. Usury is the thing but it is the very last stages of the rabbit hole which emerges in a world where one sees Capitalism as Old fashioned.
The full discussion on positve money about this question may be found at this link to a video produced byPositive money titled
Debate on Quantitative Easing in UK Parliament (Video)
in the whole debate, this statement by The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby) seems to me to be the one that Positive money might have wished to comment on in some detail. The article above is positive in tone. Personally I see no reason to be positive this is a backwards step from the money creation debate and this point on Monetary aggregartes is fundamnental to the Positive money raison detre . QE enables money creation, when it is created by Private banks we know that they are very narrow in the business case they seek to pursue, to the detriment of society at large. This is also the argument between Steve Keen and Paul Krugman summarised by Keen Here in his article for Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/st…
Come on Positive money we want some meat in our monetary reform burgers this article is inadequate even as a place holder!
Monetary policy risks provoking political backlash, campaign group tells MPs
Simon Kirby MP (Brighton, Kemptown, Conservative) was as assinine as Leadsoms response on the Money creation debate.Trying to think of something positive to say and sadly I can not. My collection of poems including Usury Hells fuel mand oppresor and tidesof the dollar moon are now available on Amazon in Kindle format. https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B01…
After the Swiss basic income vote – learning political lessons is key!
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people at-large.
The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic-income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.
The issuance of new money needs to happen to overcome the huge “gap” between today’s paltry purchasing power and the massive mountain of debt and the towering totality of prices on all available goods and services. We have full stores and empty wallets. (Ideally and importantly, governments should reclaim their interest-free money-creation rights and forbid private central banks from creating money any longer).”
Create money for people, not financial markets (Video)
Falsification is an interesting conceptual framework for considering proveable hypotheses. In the linked video Marxists are given short shrift, as an admirer of Marxist analysis and of a marxist persuasion I do of course find the videos conclusion wanting and of course that of Popper in this application of his falsifiability test there are alwys further redctible steps it seems.
If people read our conversation and consult the links they will see that I have argued from evidence and not belief as you suggest. Interest is not neutral and neither is money creation, they are two seperate questions and also combine in different scenarios to give different outcomes. Money is a human construct and as such claiming one default position is what is nonsense not the arguments which I have made. Please could you engage with the evidence and the arguments rather than claiming that I have presented a faith based claim, that is not the position and I am surprised you would so early in our dscussion default to low quality discourse.
I can assure you that I have considered as many sides of these questions as I have been able to find and I am always delighted to find new arguments that apply to further cases. an argument that applies to all cases at all times in Political Economy is not something I have even dreamt of finding.
”The value of goods,
expressed in money, is called “prices,” while the value of money, expressed in goods, is
called “value.” quiggley.
Before going ahead, let me point out that the instability of interest has nothing to do with whether or not loans can or cannot be paid but rather it has to do with the unbounded nature of debt growth, bounded being mathematically defined as:
Bounded: Any function f(t) where there exists some value B > 0 such that |f(t)| ≤ B Ɐ t ∈ℝ
For more on the instability of standard lending practices see:
The idea is that irrespective of whether loans are payable or not, any unit cost attributed to money will compound across the value chain as well as a function of any growth formulae within contracts (simple or compound interest). Thus, interest does create a constant demand for money in the form of increased and compounding costs of production that needs to be satisfied. This is only offset by economic failure that cannot be said to be unaffected by interest.
With respect to the simpler argument that both interest and principal (P+I) cannot be paid, Keen’s response neglects that it is not a myth. That is, there are cases where it is true, for example if we take the case of 100 principal (P) and at 10 percent interest to be satisfied in a single instalment, then it is evident that P+I cannot be satisfied. The question is then why this fact not myth cannot be extrapolated to a system of “n” such borrowers with overlapping repayment schedules of varying instalments. This would have been the correct point to begin his proof, but we must take note that he does not recognise this fact.
Another simple fact that he ignores, is that at no point in time is the WHOLE sum of all Principal + Interest in a system payable, i.e. payment is contingent on a potential “flow” which is neither guaranteed nor representative because said “flow” can be between positive accounts or negative accounts which in either case has zero impact on debt. ONLY transactions between negative and positive balances alter the aggregate debt balance in the system. See:
Without a model of flows that covers all such permutations his reference to “flow” is effectively meaningless.
This is very relevant because it means that no matter the rate of potential recirculation, in the limit and as principal in the system dwindles approaching the last principal instalment sum, then at that point any P+I is indeed un-payable at least for that last instalment.
If Keen wishes to prove his point then he needs to provide an equation that shows that in the limit and as Principal diminishes ALL P+I can be satisfied, which he cannot do, which is why his proof is not a mathematical proof but rather just prose.
For example, for the following proof to hold, it does not require flow to be zero or money to be treated only as a stock:
http://bibocurrency.com/index…. and this from those comments. And to be honest I´,m not really even half started warming up yet. RJ.
Much depends on ones defined parameter or the boundaries one defines in ones Functions, these are of course subjective. for more on this see this discussion on Musical Notes and are they subjective. http://letthemconfectsweeterli…
Yes patience and one dialogue at a time the exponential function will evetually do the rest. One of my first introductions to all this was this article in economania. http://www.economania.co.uk/va…
Create money for people, not financial markets (Video)
Usury is the last taboo and Keen who is a believer in reforming capitalism will not tackle usury, economists generally do not. I was reading this earlier another Economics taboo, Entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE