Topic: Economic Devastation - page 39. (Read 504811 times)

Are you saying that there are no new companies being formed today or new construction jobs being created through banks because of "debtism"? You couldn't be farther off from the truth.

Chance of opportunity is EQUAL for everyone but every opportunity benefits the boys club, the only thing that needs to change is the boys club. Regulation is there to avoid scams and business malpractice, that is another subject.

Once you have good credit you can actually leverage banks for very minimal fees so your margins get better as your business/relationship grows.

A prediction market can replace the credit beaureu and a p2p lending system can replace bank liquidity with better discovery mechanisms for interest on liquidity..however I feel if this is done we'll have huge tax increases as the boys club fights back.

Not so imho p2plending can give better rates for both invstor and creditor as it cuts the middleman

But the chance of opportunity is practially 0 in this debtism society.

In capitalism everyone starts off equally, and if they need capital, they can raise it through some sort of funding.


Try raising now money to your business. The amount of regulation will kill it, that is why decentralized crowdfunding like NXT or others have been summoned into existence, to restore real capitalism, not this monstruous government-banker romance.

Well they have an enormous advantage, they can lend you at lower rate because they just counterfeit the money.

If people were to lend their own capital then they will offer it at higher rates, making them uncompetitive.

Until people use fiat garbage, banks will have the upper hand, and the sheeps dont realize that fiat money is the root of evil.

No it is because you can capitalize on a new idea if you wish, you dont need the bank but of you meed money they are there. The fact that they are a boys club is the problem we are trying to remove not with your fixed idea that everyone becomes a slave if they use a bank

This is not capitalism, because nobody , but the elite have capital.

This is debtism.  Global bank debt slaverism? Corporate oligopolism?

Not so!

answer =
Public infrastructure on account managing and payment system + Banks only get to broker investment between credit seekers and investors (Do their real job: *risk assesment* ).
Have faith banks will not escape uberization, they are about to be disrupted ie P2P Lending

Yes.

They come out the winners no matter what happens. The bankers are always hedged.


If the economy goes on: They give out more loans (out of thin air) and get leveraged interest payments

If the economy collapses: They confiscate the assets from those that cant pay the debt, because they lost their jobs, and now the bank have real assets, which they can give in rent to the same person they stole from just so that he doesnt get in the street.


The same with bitcoin:  If bitcoin never goes mainstream (which I doubt) they will remain the elite

If bitcoin goes mainstream: They will quickly buy up bitcoin with their fictitious paper, and still remain the elite.



They will remain the elite.

In a capitalist environmemt, a business would find a need and fill it for a "cut".. Thr startup costs are too high to own entire inventory and tools so as a business they have to decide what the right amount of leverage is required or desired based on the profit margins of their product. Once the business grows you start to take middle men out or leave it based on how agile you want your process to be. Leasing increases flexibility while decreasing some profits but may let you pivot quicker going fwd. the banks are there because they have capability to leverage the heck out of the central bank and provide desired liquidity to businesses.. The banks have the most lucrative form of business models since it is fairly low risk high reward but it is a boys club and thats probably why they enjoy these benefits

Now I see, so the interest rate increase and all those loan mongering whatever are just a way to own more shit right? before a collapse?

This makes me wonder. What do we own nowadays really?


Let's take an average business for example a pizza service:  They took a business loan to start it up, they probably rent the building they operate in, the delivery cars are also leased, the tools and items are also either leased or bought in rates.


It seems to me banks own everything, and everybody else is just leasing/borrowing from them ,including medium & large businesses too ,even governments.

This makes me wonder. What do we own nowadays really?


Let's take an average business for example a pizza service:  They took a business loan to start it up, they probably rent the building they operate in, the delivery cars are also leased, the tools and items are also either leased or bought in rates.


It seems to me banks own everything, and everybody else is just leasing/borrowing from them ,including medium & large businesses too ,even governments.

Leasing is more expensive then ownership....

Leasing is more expensive then ownership, its a form of vendor financing that actually increases overall cost for users afaik.  Im not sure its more green or efficient, the company will always prefer people do this as its more profitable.

This is a fairly ingenuous idea, but it can bring its own issues. I wouldn't say I'm a socialist, but I think this offers a good compromise between capitalism and socialism, enough to appease both ends of the political spectrum.

Just to divert the topic a bit
It seems that the death of consumerism is near and that corporations are adjusting to a permanent deflationary environment.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-could-grow-revenue-iphone-subscriptions-annual-upgrade-2015-12
Consumer products will be subscription based aka leased not owned. That is good news I think environmentally-wise as that will spell the end of planned obsolescence
I think corporations will lease subscriptions plans based on product iterations. That will effectively mean that consumers will formally reuse products through official channels and when products reach end of life they (hopefully) be return for final recycling and dissasembly.
I know some of you will think that its eerily too close to central planning, but I think it will be a good compromise. And the only way imho to make it work in a deflationary environment.
Why? because subscription based products effectively count as implicit pre-ordering therefore reducing the risks in the production pipe-lining and helps minimize (depreciating) inventory and stock.

---8<---

Note I don't intend any overt ill will towards governments. Heck I am even making the first version of coin without any anonymity, so that isn't any overt move to prevent their ability to tax and track. It is just that decentralization will increasingly make governments paradigmatically irrelevant, because change moves much faster and more smoothly decentralized without a middle man in the way. Back in the dinosaur age of Industrialization, we needed governments to help us organize, protect, and regulate large fixed capital investments because production economies-of-scale did not allow individual production. The Knowledge Age has totally changed that.

---8<---


Commodities (as you refer to them meaning I assume raw materials, not the economic meaning of fungibility) are the old Industrial Age paradigm. I have explained extensively in the Economics Devastation thread that the Knowledge Age will be valued in speed and granularity of knowledge creation. Thinking in terms of models of usury, fixed capital investment and the cost of atoms, is ... sorry to say for dinosaurs.

I had this debate with the 150+ IQ genius Eric Raymond about his assertion that cost of atoms can never be free. It is in the Dark Enlightment thread.

That is old news for me. I have already decided I am correct on the economic theory and I have moved on to implementation.