3 ms·

> The world would be a much better placed if the most highly taxed form of income was rent profits in all its forms. Non-productive income is responsible for pe

> The world would be a much better placed if the most highly taxed form of income was rent profits in all its forms. Non-productive income is responsible for perpetuating a lot of income disparity. In other words, you want to totally change the system. One of the most important rent profits is plain old loans. Just because you have money, you can have even more, later. They justify interest rates with the risks they take, but that's most probably a lie. They want a cut. But the actual costs only lies in bookkeeping, which should not be charged with interest rates, but flat rates. (Interest rates are still justified up to actual risks, but no more.) Now for the real fun: in Europe (and probably most of the world), for about 40 years, our central banks are "independents". The states cannot directly borrow from them any more. Now, we have to borrow from private banks, who themselves borrow from the central banks at a lower interest rate, or produce money out of thin air, like a state, or a forger. (The main actual mechanisms are Fractional Reserve Banking, tax havens, and derivatives). A world-wide conspiracy wouldn't have done better.

malandrew 15y ago
This is by far the best comment I've seen in a while. Loans to individuals today are account to little more than taxes paid to private individuals, who will obviously spend the money on themselves instead of the commons. It would be awesome if a system were established that allows individuals to borrow from the central bank the same way private banks do. If JP Morgan can borrow from the Fed, then I as an individual should be able to borrow from the Fed, with an adjustment for actual risk and no more. In aggregate, I bet you that 300 million Americans pose a far lesser risk than do a couple of major banks. Like you said, a world-wide conspiracy would not have succeeded in creating a system that allows private banks access to a nationalized bank but only allow individuals to borrow from those banks. The technology is there or almost there to automate lending the entire lending process enough to make direct government-to-citizen lending possible. All that is needed is a way to implement this such that it results less systemic risk than our current system by fostering greater diversity in lending strategies and risk assessment than a few large banks. All you do is plug in lending strategies that are sufficiently vague and considered in aggregate at each level that gaming the system in a way that unfairly favors certain individuals. The cost of taking the money from a government loan institution and putting in the hand of an individual should cost almost zero and the lending decisions should be made as close to the community level (as in the state or county level) as possible on a per capita basis with any incidental returns accruing to the level at which it was lent at. e.g. a county would lend money to its constituents in a way where they balance returns to the city coffers with the growth from lending at lower rates. i.e. the federal government automates the writing of loan checks and collecting them, amount lent is proportional to local population, excess returns go to taxes, counties can levy taxes to make up a deficit (failure to properly assess risk and rates), but who gets loans and the rates are determined locally. We'd essentially end up with 2992 entities that resemble the small local banks we used to have before the banking market consolidated, but that are essentially charged with ensuring the goodwill of their own community and not shareholders living elsewhere. Private banks would still exist, but would have to compete with such a system and would probably compete in areas where such a system could not, such as corporate loans.

malandrew 15y ago

This is by far the best comment I've seen in a while. Loans to individuals today are account to little more than taxes paid to private individuals, who will obviously spend the money on themselves instead of the commons. It would be awesome if a system were established that allows individuals to borrow from the central bank the same way private banks do. If JP Morgan can borrow from the Fed, then I as an individual should be able to borrow from the Fed, with an adjustment for actual risk and no more. In aggregate, I bet you that 300 million Americans pose a far lesser risk than do a couple of major banks. Like you said, a world-wide conspiracy would not have succeeded in creating a system that allows private banks access to a nationalized bank but only allow individuals to borrow from those banks. The technology is there or almost there to automate lending the entire lending process enough to make direct government-to-citizen lending possible. All that is needed is a way to implement this such that it results less systemic risk than our current system by fostering greater diversity in lending strategies and risk assessment than a few large banks. All you do is plug in lending strategies that are sufficiently vague and considered in aggregate at each level that gaming the system in a way that unfairly favors certain individuals. The cost of taking the money from a government loan institution and putting in the hand of an individual should cost almost zero and the lending decisions should be made as close to the community level (as in the state or county level) as possible on a per capita basis with any incidental returns accruing to the level at which it was lent at. e.g. a county would lend money to its constituents in a way where they balance returns to the city coffers with the growth from lending at lower rates. i.e. the federal government automates the writing of loan checks and collecting them, amount lent is proportional to local population, excess returns go to taxes, counties can levy taxes to make up a deficit (failure to properly assess risk and rates), but who gets loans and the rates are determined locally. We'd essentially end up with 2992 entities that resemble the small local banks we used to have before the banking market consolidated, but that are essentially charged with ensuring the goodwill of their own community and not shareholders living elsewhere. Private banks would still exist, but would have to compete with such a system and would probably compete in areas where such a system could not, such as corporate loans.