View Single Post
Old 29-04-2012, 08:53 PM   #58
aulus agerius
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)

Originally Posted by mpe_solution View Post
Why do you think B will have no way to be paid? Can he not sell the house to someone else?
First, you haven't specified that the loan involves any security interest over the property involved, also see below on the value of collateral match the amount of the debt.

The banking system wants us to believe that they loan out money from deposits. How can this even be true? Which depositor is missing money from his account when a new loan is made? It is pretty obvious that the loan is new money created by the promise to pay.
I think this shows that you don't understand what a bank account actually is. A bank account is not: you pay money into the bank, which bundles it up and keeps it in a vault somewhere until you need it. A bank account is: You pay money into the bank; they promise to pay you back the money when you ask for it. In the meantime they invest your money (i.e. the lend it to other people). As Rumple pointed out, if everyone demands their money from a bank at the same time, the bank runs out of money because they have lent a lot of their depositors money out and haven't got it back yet. If bank accounts worked the way you seem to think then bank runs would not happen. They observably do.

But money is not property. It has no value beyond the actual property it is entitled to. Imagine if you had $1,000,000 dollars but were stranded on a deserted island. What good is the money to you. It's useless. Real property like food clothing shelter is what has value. We have been fooled into believing money is a good.
Entitlement to a thing is also a kind of thing. On the logic that money is not property, then is stealing money from someone else not theft? Money is property. Your desert Island example just demonstrates that the value of property varies depending on your circumstances. If you were stuck on a desert Island with a bar of gold or a desktop computer, they would still be your property. They just wouldn't do you any good.

I didn't say the volume of money is a constant. Actually, the volume has been growing exponentially. But, contrary to what bankers and economists would like you to believe that increasing the money supply causes inflation, in actuality, as more money is reborrowed to pay principle + interest, the cost of servicing the debt becomes higher and higher. This causes deflation because there is less money available for commerce. As a result business must increase prices to cover the increasing costs of servicing the debt.
You appear to have the same thing causing inflation and deflation at the same time. I think that this also goes back to your idea of money being loaned into existence, which you still have not evidenced.

The infrastructure will be setup upon implementation of MPE. It's as simple as a computer network. It can be at minimum, as secure as the current banking infrastructure but we can also increase security if people are willing. It can be funded with a service fee for each transaction.
Who is "we" in this context? What will compel people to use your infrastructure instead of the existing one?
Under the present system, they are compelled to accept the banking systems published evidence of our own promise to pay and government enforces it. So instead of giving bankers the privilege of having a monopoly to publish this evidence of our promises, we can do it ourselves through a Common Monetary Infrastructure and government can enforce these also.
So, the infrastructure you are proposing is essentially just a way to trade individual promises to pay, amongst individuals instead of (as now happens) amongst banks and corporations, through credit derivatives etc?

I think you are confusing the process. Our promises to pay become monetized. They become money. The seller receives the buyers promise to pay in the form of money ie cash, check, wire transfer etc...
So, let's go back to A and B again. B wants 100,000 GBP to build A's house. A says "I promise to pay you 100,000 GBP". At what point does B get 1000 one-hundred pound notes? A is promising to pay on the expectation that he is going to get paid for what ever work he does, so, when he does get paid, who does that money go to? Alternatively, are you saying that the trading of promises to pay will replace money as a medium of exchange.
We make it obligatory. The the payments must be paid back to the CMI that retires the money out of circulation.
So you are proposing a state controlled system of banking?
Why can't we insure the house?
Who pays for the insurance? Who requires there to be insurance? Who underwrites the insurance? If you consider the insurance as part of the cost of the loan (which you should if it is a mandatory part of taking the loan) then the loan is no longer 1:1 debt to repayment is it? there's the cost of the insurance too.
Again, we determine the schedule of payment. So, in the case of the car a down payment is required and payments can be higher at the beginning of the loan.
I'm not sure people generally want the government dictating the terms on which they can take loans. You're effectively saying the people can only borrow money if they have sufficient collateral and insurance to negate the risk of their default. In reality this would mean that only large loans, either secured on existing valuable assets or large loans to purchase assets together with a large down payment would be permissible.

Take some time to really understand MPE and you will see how it is the only solution to the problem.
So far I haven't found the answers particularly convincing. Since you seem to be here as an advocate of MPE, this is your opportunity to convince people that MPE is "the only solution". So far you haven't convinced this one.
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote