SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anonymous Coward writes:
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/ 18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, 'there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning.'
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window."
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:36AM
If you don't understand, that explains you.
Economics may be discussed in a pure environment separate from morality and ethics, but when practiced, those come into play, or should.
To put it another, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven. Putting value above what is real invites greed which in turn invites power. As a species we have not shown that we handle power well (power corrupts and all). Look about the world, it is not really going well.
That is how the two sentences make sense.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @05:21PM
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday March 26 2014, @08:27PM
Somehow I feel we are talking past each other.
You asked how my two sentences went together. I told you why.
As I can tell, there are two values we deal with, real value and faith or relative value. So a minor correction, once a buyer has been found a value has been established. If I give water away has it lost it's 'value'? No, for it still exists, it still provides sustenance. There is a real value to it and by giving it away I am taking on that real value. When I charge a price I set a value that still could be lower then the real value or higher. When it goes above a real value then I am setting a price based on the faith that someone will pay it. When they do I concur a relative value has been established, but that is all it is, relative to what I choose to set. That value is whimsical, it is made up simply because I make a choice. Upstream from me another entity may be doing the same thing, but as I buy from them, they determine my 'real value'. You can take that all the way upstream to pulling material from the ground and making parts.
The underlying point I was trying to get across is that when we value something beyond what it is really worth we create the fertile ground for greed and power. Our valuation, our determination of worth is better served when we do so under the idea of ethics and morality.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @09:56PM
All that is fine, but the premise falls apart when the purchase has been made. Nobody will pay more than they want to. I think what's confusing you is that people *wish* things were cheaper but ultimately demand keeps the price up. It is nothing to do with faith or whimsy. That guy selling bottles of water at the stadium, he might be able to charge a hundred, but he will not be able to charge a thousand for exactly that reason.
There are lots of variables, but it is not mysticism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:03PM
Hey I owe you an apology. I mistook you for the other guy whose name begins with B, that's why the 'faith-based' question keeps coming up.
That's entirely my fault, I'm sorry.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday March 28 2014, @01:07PM
Well thank you and that does explain why we seemed off on understanding. SO to be clear, I'm the smarter B (lol)
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 29 2014, @09:37AM