|
Post by franklin on Apr 26, 2010 12:56:15 GMT -5
Or creating dollars digitally, this makes it so the people who receive those dollars gain more of the countrie's wealth and everyone else’s dollars become less valuable, so in this manner it would make the poor poorer and the rich richer? And by doing this wealth is diverted from one place to another, wherever those dollars go wealth goes too. If money is just created and loaned the economy has to support whatever the dollars are used for, so rather than creating something out of nothing it's a way to divert resources
So would this be the hidden way that the poorest people are actually taxed the most
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 26, 2010 16:28:41 GMT -5
Just started watching this video up to the part where it says the loan resulted in a loss to everyones money, this also explains why I said the African slave trade diverted wealth away from society, but also suppressed African economies "Money as Debt II Promises Unleashed (3 of 8)" www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7Jjb0cw9o&feature=related"History of monetary imperialism" By Henry C K Liu www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JI26Cb01.html[They ( Hume and Cantillon) pointed out that most monetary injections would involve non-neutral distribution effects. New money would not be distributed among individuals in proportion to their pre-existing share of money holdings. Those who receive more will benefit at the expense of those receiving less than their proportionate share, and they will exert more influence in determining the composition of new output. Initial distribution effects temporarily alter the pattern of expenditure and thus the structure of production and the allocation of resources. This is how inflation causes income disparity.]
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 26, 2010 19:39:10 GMT -5
This might give some insight into modern manipulation of currencies by looking back to earlier time periods. What’s also interesting is the redistribution of the currency which is also a way to maintain loyalty The important thing about the article concerning the thread topic is looking at the cowry shell currency and the excessive pumping of it into the economy "Reflections on the Historiography of the Rise of Dahomey" by Robin Law Electronic page 25, note that this can be downloaded see bottom of postwww.jstor.org/pss/181135[and account needs to be taken of the crucial role played for the Dahomian state not only by imported firearms (whose importance Peukert tends to discount) but also by imported luxury items, which could be distributed to attract and secure the allegiance of followers, and by the cowry shells which served as currency in local markets. The importance of imported goods in royal largesse was already clear in the I 720s, when Bulfinch Lamb noted that the king of Dahomey 'gives away Booges [cowries] like Dirt, and Brandy like Water . The importance of cowry shells should especially be stressed: in the second half of the seventeenth century, it appears that between a third and a half of the value of imports into the Slave Coast was normally in cowries. It is somewhat ironic that Peukert points to the existence of a flourishing local exchange economy in Dahomey as part of his argument for the downgrading of the significance of overseas trade. But this flourishing local trade, lubricated by a currency of imported cowry shells, was evidently, in large measure, itself a consequence of the booming Atlantic trade]Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 27, 2010 15:07:08 GMT -5
Ok I grasp a little bit more how the slave trade put so many people into great and unpayable debts, the very system is set so some people will not be able to repay their loans, it is an inevitable part of the system The reason that the slave trade was unprofitable was because it was brought to such an extreme level, actual gains were actually sacrificed in order to gain more control over Africans To think that the planters somehow were influencing the whole system is extremely naive because the planters were the ones deep in debt. The slave trade itself could not have been brought about at this grand level without such debts, it would be like breaking the laws of physics. Now this thread is not about the slave trade but this does show how things work today, and the origins of it I believe that the slave trade created overall more debt for Europeans, as will as for Africans, than profits but the profits went to different people. Seriously ask yourself why so many institutions were involved like insurance. Its not that the Bank of England could create something out of nothing because the loan would actually divert resources to whoever it is loaned to, so the economy has to support whatever the money is used for and thus taking away from productive work for the rest of society. The resources exist that could run the slave trade but not sustain it because people would not want to invest resources into something that wasn't profitable, so people would naturally put their capital into something productive. Now Africans contributed a great amount to the Americas but John Newton who lived during the slave trade even believed that if the Europeans didn't cram the ships full they would be able to transport more people alive. No one would throw expensive cargo overboard unless they were somehow being supported for it somehow. What needs to be emphasized is that it wasn't just the need for credit but the need for someone who could loan money they didn't have But it was all very complex and it was a global system but money would have to be juggled around so that people don't notice that people were falling into great debt. On top of this such a system would not make Brittan great because it would involve putting something that was probably more productive into something less productive which logically would be the case of anyone having the ability to loan money they don't have. "Money as Debt II Promises Unleashed (6 of 8)" www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQRB2xthXFM&feature=relatedThe video mentions the bank of England and gives this quote "Africans and the industrial revolution in England" By J. E. Inikori books.google.com/books?id=f6VfsgHVk40C&lpg=PA470&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false [ The success of the British traders in capturing a large share of the slave trade in the eighteenth century was often attributed by the traders to this generous extension of credit by the export producers. "the credit which the British merchant has with the manufacturers, which no other merchant in Europe enjoys..."But the provision of this credit posed serious financial problems for the manufacturers. The firm of William and Samuel Rawlinson that had boasted of their ability to serve the African merchants to their satisfaction soon ran into credit problems with these merchants. In December 1790, one of the Liverpool African traders, Joseph Caton, wrote to James Rogers in Bristol: (and then it goes on] “The Royal African Company” By K. G. Davies books.google.com/books?id=w9sH0h391c8C&lpg=PA75&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false [Thus in the later 'seventies and in the 'eighties the company spent each year on the purchase of goods for export on shipping a sum appreciably larger than what was left of its share-capital after the Adventurers had been bought out..... ....But the turnover of capital in the African trade was exceedingly slow....Even if all these plantation debts had proved good, which many did not, the consequence of giving long credit was to slow down the turnover of capital until a gap often of years intervened between the sowing of the seed, in the form of exports to Africa, and the reaping of the harvest, in the shape of returns from the West Indies]
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 27, 2010 16:06:04 GMT -5
I put some information on debt on this thread, you'll see that the national debt played a major role in keeping wealth away from the common person by excessive export of capital, which were various ways to finance the debt. The national debt in itself is a force that allows many of these schemes to happen to the point that it would be impossible to carry out the scheme in the first place without the debt. Not only does the debt have interest that the common people will have to pay in taxes but also for the schemes to finance that debt. The South Sea Company, East Indian Company and the Bank of England were ways to finance the debt "Liberal imperialism" egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=115
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 27, 2010 19:00:32 GMT -5
The reason the expenses often exceed the returns is often because it is a necessary way to control people but often it is also just wasteful. But if there is a conspiracy to prevent countries logically that would also lower opportunities for trade for both countries. The reason I want to emphasis that is that is because people talk about how different countries should be given aid and everything, based on the assumption they are struggling because of a lack of help. The problem is the reverse where great effort is done to hold these countries back But anyway this quote ties in with banking Edit: He talks about war but this also applies to other unproductive activities, including in modern times Adam Smith books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false [So great a share of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, has, since the Revolution, been employed upon different occasions, in maintaining an extraordinary number of unproductive hands. But had not those wars given this particular direction to so large a capital, the greater part of it would naturally have been employed in maintaining productive hands, whose labour would have replaced, with a profit, the whole value of their consumption. The value of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country would have been considerably increased by it every year, and every years increase would have augmented still more that of the following year. More houses would have been built, more lands would have been improved, and those which had been improved before would have been better cultivated ; more manufactures would have been established, and those which had been established before would have been more extended; and to what height the real wealth and revenue of the country might by this time have been raised, it is not perhaps very easy even to imagineBut though the profusion of government must undoubtedly have retarded the natural progress of England towards wealth and improvement, it has not been able to stop it. The annual produce of its land and labour is undoubtedly much greater at present than it was either at the Restoration or at the Revolution. The capital, therefore, annually employed in cultivating this land, and in maintaining this labour, must likewise be much greater. In the midst of all the exactions of government, this capital has been silently and gradually accumulated by the private frugality and good conduct of individuals, by their universal, contmual, and uninterrupted effort to better their own condition. It is this effort, protected by law, and allowed by liberty to exert itself in the manner that is most advantageous, which has maintained the progress of England towards opulence and improvement in almost all former times, and which, it is to be hoped, will do so in all future times.]
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 27, 2010 21:53:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 28, 2010 14:36:22 GMT -5
(Concerning high taxes on the wealthy) with Ronald Regan there were huge deficits with military spending and everything which would impede wealth from trickling down to the common people but it seems like in times of inflation it is basically like wealth going up to the rich. The economy has to support whatever the dollars are used forI have shown some information that flooding people with cheap goods can make them poorer, so obviously what has been happening with Wal-Mart has been going on for centuries and was a very central part of British imperialism, in a way Brittan was like Wal-Mart. I should also add, and this is highly significant, is that Wal-Mart also forces people into reliance by buying what other people make and the British empire was the same. To raise up customers and suppliers was both the motive for British imperialism as will as often being the very tool by which they implemented and maintained this imperialism. Today the United States consumes many of the things that are produced throughout the world, so this is also almost the reverse of being the world's workshop that was the British empire. In fact things have reversed so much that policies go out of their way to move companies overseas to sell back to the United States I highly recommend reading this article "The Wal-Mart You Don't Know" www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 28, 2010 15:34:56 GMT -5
It seems that the big problem is lack of competition since companies can drive prices so far down that they pay lower wages in order to make a profit. The evidence in the above article suggests that if there was more competition, ironically, they would be forced to charge higher prices. So other countries that produce things that are exported to the United States are burdened by this because there is more motivation to pay them lower wages in order to make a profit on goods that are sold very cheaply. The situation can be compared to the colonial era South Africa when lower gold prices lead to more exploitation in order to make a profit. Rita M. Byrnes, ed. South Africa: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996. Gold and Diamonds countrystudies.us/south-africa/66.htm[Gold mining companies traditionally kept expenses to a minimum by paying low wages. Gold mines became known for their often exploitative labor policies, including the use of migrant workers on limited contracts, strict worker control in company compounds, and difficult working conditions. Labor costs were especially important in determining profits, because the price of gold was set at US$35 per ounce through the 1960s. After the price of gold was allowed to float in 1968, it gradually rose in response to market demand, and companies could afford to produce less and still earn even greater profits. They then began to expand operations into so-called low-grade-ore mines. The volume of South African gold production fell, and gold prices skyrocketed to an all-time high of US$613 per ounce in 1980.]
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 28, 2010 16:43:05 GMT -5
To sum it all up, over production and a need to raise a demand to consume it is very clearly not a modern phenomenon at all and stems from when a 1. minority is able to form monopolies and also 2. mal-distribution of consuming power. It is dangerous to think that this is a new phenomenon because then it won't be taken into proper perspective
Monopolies and mal-distribution of consumption both relate to money as this is an effect of when the rest of society is being continually robbed
Edit: I probably should have said purchasing power. But anyway inflation would lower purchasing power while also giving more money to the already rich who would then be able to produce more things that everyone else is supposed to buy
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Apr 28, 2010 20:08:38 GMT -5
Hey I just started watching the history channel thing about the history of America and they talked about the importance of tobacco, a crop that can make people the equivalent of millionaires. Good business in the early 17th century but in the late 17th century, for a period, there was so much tobacco that it was losing money. (this is an assumption that it was the large supply) This would be very recognizable to modern times where people are encouraged to buy things until it becomes like a necessity, I'm interested to know if anyone knows anything about tobacco because I do know that sugar consumption went way up and people became kind of addicted to it. The way it looks is that enough was produced to meet demand, but then demand is encouraged to rise much more over that, would this be correct? The book also specifically says that if more sugar was produced the lowering of price would have been even more catastrophic, and specifically says that in certain periods both tobacco and sugar were losing money, it says the sugar trade was seen for a time as "an unfortunate necessity" What needs to be emphasized here is that by diverting resources from other kinds of industries makes the people overall poorer, resources went to the sugar plantations that could have gone to something else, and thus make the poor poorer. The way the trade is carried on clearly diverts resources from other places, as they said clearly themselves that this was a losing trade for a time"The Royal African Company" books.google.com/books?id=qUN-VpQPvlwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA341#v=onepage&q&f=false
|
|
|
Post by franklin on May 1, 2010 1:13:26 GMT -5
Is it possible that high income taxes on the wealthy actually serve to impede wealth from trickling down to the common people? Instead of trickling it continues to evaporate (inflation) making the rich richer, and it remains as a sort of juggling act while the government gives some of it to the common folk to keep them happy the overall process serves to keep the wealth to the richest. Alternatively it also encourages people to use tax havens and cheating on taxes See chat attachment: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 1, 2010 9:40:17 GMT -5
Franklin, in a global economy the dollar is a major medium of exchange along with the currency of a few other major economies, like the Euro, Sterling, Yen, to name a few.
If extra dollars are simply printed and flood the economy it does more harm that good for the particular economy that hosts the dollar. It would depreciate the value of the dollar, and allow American manufactured products to be purchased very cheap. Let me try to explain it using another currency, (This is only an illustration)
Let say the exchange rate between the Egyptian pound and the U.S. dollar is 7:1. So it would cost 7 Egyptian pounds for 1 dollar. So lets say and Egyptian wanted to import a particular American product (not including taxes and custom duties) that cost $10, this product would cost them 70 le (Egyptian pounds.)
Suppose the dollar depreciated in value due to flooding the market. Now the exchange rate become 3:1. So 1 U.S. dollar cost only 3 le (Egyptian pounds). They can now purchase the same U.S. product for only 30le, where as it once cost them 70 le.
Do you see how this would hurt the U.S. economy? By contrast, An Egyptian product may become more expensive to one using the American dollar.
Although American products can be purchased less expensively, we have to consider the COST of manufacturing such product to realize if it became more or less profitable.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on May 1, 2010 11:27:05 GMT -5
Of course it hurts the economy but inflation does exist, and as long as it exists it can be used as a way to evaporate wealth from the lower classes while trying to keep wealth in the top tier of society. I never said it was good for the economy.
Its not good to rely on most of the income taxes coming from such a small part of the population either
Another thing that is of the highest significance, and ties in here, is long credit that allows capital to be tied up for long periods of time like with the African slave trade, which I have pointed out and this having a great deal with government intervention, and that the slave trade was absolutely impossible to sustain at a high level without the accumulation of debt, and would have otherwise been like breaking the laws of physics, and the long credit being stated as essential too. This then was overall very negative to the country. And then there is the excessive export of capital during the late 19th century imperial era too, all these policies being very detrimental to the public
|
|
|
Post by franklin on May 1, 2010 12:01:21 GMT -5
Adam Smith had shown that a "great perversion of the annual produce from maintaining productive to maintain unproductive hands" is something that has existed since the most ancient of times, the only difference today is that there has been much progress and advancement in society, but it is not anything new.
|
|