Is currency evil?

[RJBeery]

In the world of our ordinary existence, we must be content with cogent arguments & conclusions which satisfy our sense of reasonableness & fair play.The conclusions that can be proven to be objectively true only exist in the mindscape of mathematics & formal logic.

Actually, neither mathematics nor formal logic prove anything to be objectively true. What can be proven is that certain statements are logically consistent with a particular set of axioms.

BTW: Some of the terms used in stating a set of axioms must be viewed as undefined primitives.

It is interesting to note that a consensus is not worth much.The above was a statement by an amazing fictional character: The Master of Sinanju, a fictional character.

I agree with what you're saying but my point is that we must recognize "evil" as a subjective term to answer the OP; after that we can debate why we believe money is or is not evil. If the OP said "Is the $100 US bill approximately 156mm wide?" then we could have an a conversation about it and come to an objective conclusion. We don't need to dig deeper in to the semantics than that.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

TASTE is subjective; yet I suspect we could find more Nazi sympathizers in the world than people who think a shit sandwich is delicious.

We have an instinctive revulsion to the taste and smell of things like that. In the Stone Age, it kept us from trying to eat things out of curiosity that would have infected us with bacteria.

Dogs (and all canids), on the other hand, have such a short digestive tract that it's hard for them to maintain a bacterial culture. So they are attracted to the smell of feces and use it to replenish their culture--as every dog lover knows. Canids are about the only group of species that eat their entire kill, including the intestines and their contents. They'll even scavenge the intestines left by bears and cougars in their kills.

 

[RJBeery]

We have an instinctive revulsion to the taste and smell of things like that. In the Stone Age, it kept us from trying to eat things out of curiosity that would have infected us with bacteria.

Dogs (and all canids), on the other hand, have such a short digestive tract that it's hard for them to maintain a bacterial culture. So they are attracted to the smell of feces and use it to replenish their culture--as every dog lover knows. Canids are about the only group of species that eat their entire kill, including the intestines and their contents. They'll even scavenge the intestines left by bears and cougars in their kills.

Didn't know that, I thought dogs ate shit to boost their immune system (or something). Also, flies seem to find shit tasty. With such an "obvious" observation that shit is objectively disgusting it's easy to see that this isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Also, flies seem to find shit tasty. With such an "obvious" observation that shit is objectively disgusting it's easy to see that this isn't necessarily the case.

Many species of animals are detritivores. They consume the decomposing tissue of dead organisms, and/or their feces. Other species are scavengers whose digestive system can process organic tissue in a wide range of states from recently killed to already-decomposing, as well as feces, which is nothing more than organic tissue which some other animal's digestive system has already started digesting before he died.

And of course it isn't just the Animal Kingdom that counts detritivores among its member species. Mushrooms are fungi with the rare ability to digest dead wood. They have the enzyme lignase, which can break down lignin, the compound that forms the incredibly hard cell walls of trees and other woody plants. Before the evolution of mushrooms, dead trees lay on the forest floor for thousands or even millions of years, to be very sloooowly broken down by physical forces such as erosion and compression. This is why we have a the Petrified Forest in Arizona, and also why we have deposits of petroleum, coal and natural gas. These things will never exist again in any significant quantity, once we use them up.

Mushrooms intervene and turn them into compost. Look at the dead trees lying on the ground in any forest and you'll see them covered with happy little mushrooms, just doing their job.

 

[Billy T]

SUMMARY: Yes Fiat Currency, at least, is EVIL. But it will not be around much longer (China will back the RMB with gold)
For how, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136309-Tapering-the-Taper&p=3123137&viewfull=1#post3123137
For why, See: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...l-Superpower&p=3117025&viewfull=1#post3117025
And for some source finally agreeing with my more than four year old prediction of an gold backed RMB see post 1305 a few posts more recent in same thread.
From link (1) below:

Live 39 years more, and YOUR DEBT will be more than 1 million dollars! (in current dollars)
I'm too old to live to see that and sitting the rise out in resource rich Brazil where China is already its main and rapidly growing export market.

In a nutshell, most developed economies have unsustainable tax and benefit structures that are baked into current spending patterns. Due to rising dependency ratios, these tax and benefit structures will become less generous over time. And as they do, the middle class will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the same level of spending, let alone manage any growth.

To some extent, this story has already been playing out in Japan, parts of Europe, and also in the U.S. for the last 15 years or so. As of 2012, American median household income (inflation-adjusted) had fallen 9% below its all-time peak in 1999 and 1% below the previous cyclical peak in 1989. That's 23 years without any growth, whatsoever, even with the benefits of massive deficit spending.

Looking forward, America's finances are becoming even more challenging as baby boomer retirements bend the debt trajectory upwards, putting more pressure on the average taxpayer. We've illustrated this on several occasions, using projections from the Congressional Budget Office as well as our own research to correct for delusions in the CBO's work. (See (1) and (2) links below, for examples.) These pictures show annual increases in debt-to-GDP getting larger and larger as interest costs grow and demographics worsen.

When even the CBO's optimistic number crunching shows debt ratios climbing exponentially, you have to wonder if Charles Ponzi is looking you right in the eye and making his best pitch.

(1) http://www.cyniconomics.com/2013/09...uble-when-even-the-cbo-says-theres-a-problem/
(2) http://www.cyniconomics.com/2013/10/06/why-the-debt-ceiling-debate-is-different-this-time/

A very striking feature of the latest CBO report is how much worse it is than last year's. A year ago, the CBO's extended baseline series for the federal debt in public hands projected a figure of 52% of GDP by 2038. That figure has very nearly doubled to 100%. A year ago the debt was supposed to glide down to zero by the 2070s. This year's long-run projection for 2076 is above 200%. In this devastating {CBO} reassessment, a crucial role is played here by the more realistic growth assumptions used this year.

As the CBO noted last month in its 2013 "Long-Term Budget Outlook," echoing the work of Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff : "The increase in debt relative to the size of the economy, combined with an increase in marginal tax rates (the rates that would apply to an additional dollar of income), would reduce output and raise interest rates relative to the benchmark economic projections that CBO used in producing the extended baseline. Those economic differences would lead to lower federal revenues and higher interest payments. . . .

"At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government's willingness or ability to pay U.S. debt obligations, making it more difficult or more expensive for the government to borrow money. Moreover, even before that point was reached, the high and rising amount of debt that CBO projects under the extended baseline would have significant negative consequences for both the economy and the federal budget."

 

[Mathers2013]

I do not see how ANYONE can judge society (by studying sociology) because EVERYTHING has a place in society and cannot be separated from stated entity. Given this ANY study of society will lack "objectivity" and logic. However that is not to say that nothing can be learnt from studying society, merely that the conclusions will not be logical.

 

[RJBeery]

I do not see how ANYONE can judge society (by studying sociology) because EVERYTHING has a place in society and cannot be separated from stated entity. Given this ANY study of society will lack "objectivity" and logic. However that is not to say that nothing can be learnt from studying society, merely that the conclusions will not be logical.

Well we can make conclusions based on studying many societies across history. Some things work, and some don't. Communism is a good example.

 

[Mathers2013]

But anybody studying society is a part of a society so the results will be illogical. I'm not saying useless, just illogical.

 

[RJBeery]

But anybody studying society is a part of a society so the results will be illogical. I'm not saying useless, just illogical.

Perhaps inconclusive but I wouldn't say illogical. Couldn't we make the same argument about anything?

We're an integral part of reality, therefore any conclusions we draw about reality while studying it are illogical.

Or maybe by illogical you mean that our conclusions will always have a subjective element to them. I think I agree with that.

 

[Billy T]

As fiat, yes:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation sued 16 of the world's largest banks on Friday, accusing them of collusively suppressing interest rates.

The lawsuit, filed in the federal district court in New York, was the latest to accuse financial institutions of conspiring to manipulate Libor, or the London Interbank Offered Rate. The FDIC said the defendants' conduct caused substantial losses to 38 banks that the U.S. regulator had taken into receivership since 2008.

The banksters picked your pocket in two different ways: (1) Tax payers, not really FDIC take the loss & (2) You paid higher than free market interest rates, especially if your mortgage was of the ARM type.

 

[KitemanSA]

Is currency evil?

NO!

 

[Gremmie]

Is currency evil?

NO!

I say yes... Everything should be free. Yeah, I know, never gonna happen. I can dream the impossible dream though.

 

[wellwisher]

Inanimate objects are not evil unless human define it that way. It takes humans to polarize neutral into evil. Money and currency is a means of exchange and trade that is compact and avoids having to trade chickens for pigs, when people don't need chickens. Money is more flexible and allows continued trade. It only becomes evil when humans get involved, since money without humans is not alive. Our imagination makes it alive.

Money being evil is based on projection, where things in the unconscious mind, are made conscious, by appearing to stem from outside in the money. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash a head. If we left the hammer on the table it will sit and rust. It takes a human to choose its function. The good man will build while the evil man will use the hammer to bash heads. If we take away the human, the hammer does not do anything.

The anti-gun lobby makes use of projection, since it is not very conscious of its own motivations. It sees its own dark side via the gun. The gun is alive and has magical powers that can force the hand to do thins it has no control over. The gun has evil JUJU that can control the humans like puppets. But in reality, this all starts in the human mind and heart, where all the evil dwells securely in unconsciousness.

Part of self awareness is to accept the projection as part of you so one can deal with it.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

I say yes... Everything should be free. Yeah, I know, never gonna happen. I can dream the impossible dream though.

If everything were free, nothing would have any value.

I agree with wellwisher. To put it another way though, in Thoreau's Walden he describes a simple-minded woodsman who though he seems stupid often gets to the heart of matters and sees the origin of complex institutions. So when Thoreau asked him if money were useful, the woodsman thinks it over, and says,"What if I had an ox, but I needed a needle and thread?" He can hardly parcel off bits of the ox for small necessities, or rather he could with promissory notes. Hence: money.

As in the case of guns, or that Great Satan known as the Internet, money is merely a medium. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Money isn't evil, avariciousness is evil.

 

[joepistole]

As fiat, yes: The banksters picked your pocket in two different ways: (1) Tax payers, not really FDIC take the loss & (2) You paid higher than free market interest rates, especially if your mortgage was of the ARM type.

Well that isn't true. The FDIC is financed by the so called "banksters". It's a government insurance agency and it operates like an insurance company. Two, the LIBOR (London Interbank Operating Rate) which a lot of credit card and mortgage rates are tide was indeed manipulated by the so called "banksters". But the "banksters" were caught and are now paying for that transgression.

 

[Sorcerer]

If everything were free, nothing would have any value.

I agree with wellwisher. To put it another way though, in Thoreau's Walden he describes a simple-minded woodsman who though he seems stupid often gets to the heart of matters and sees the origin of complex institutions. So when Thoreau asked him if money were useful, the woodsman thinks it over, and says,"What if I had an ox, but I needed a needle and thread?" He can hardly parcel off bits of the ox for small necessities, or rather he could with promissory notes. Hence: money.

As in the case of guns, or that Great Satan known as the Internet, money is merely a medium. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Money isn't evil, avariciousness is evil.

Avarice is a good word, and shorter.

Money is just a medium of exchange and neither good nor evil. Just there are crooks who steal it.

 

[joepistole]

Avarice is a good word, and shorter.

Money is just a medium of exchange and neither good nor evil. Just there are crooks who steal it.

Crooks still steal a lot of things, not just money.

 

[Sorcerer]

Crooks still steal a lot of things, not just money.

A very important point, one that few people will have noticed.

 

[Billy T]

... But the "banksters" were caught and are now paying for that transgression.

Are are you telling that if for several years I paid more interest on my ARM mortgage, with the interest rate tied to Libor that I will get a refund? I think not. I think the banksters will get slight fraction of their gain taken away is all that will happen, as usual.

I agree that making good on deposits in failed banks is the task of the FDI and that they collect an "insurance fee" from the banks, that usually, but not always covers it. FDI has had to asked Congress (the tax payers) for the difference at least once, twice I think.

But where do you think the banks get the money to pay that FDI fee? I don't think they find it under a old tire. I think they collect it from those with money on deposit in the banks - which is basically the same set of people, I called "tax payers."

 

[joepistole]

Are are you telling that if for several years I paid more interest on my ARM mortgage, with the interest rate tied to Libor that I will get a refund? I think not. I think the banksters will get slight fraction of their gain taken away is all that will happen, as usual.

Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But this administration has been very tough on banks and been very aggressive in fining them for transgressions. These fines have inflicted real pain on the banking industry, more accurately on bank shareholders.

I agree that making good on deposits in failed banks is the task of the FDI and that they collect an "insurance fee" from the banks, that usually, but not always covers it. FDI has had to asked Congress (the tax payers) for the difference at least once, twice I think.

The FDIC, like the Federal Reserve, operates without government funding. Fees levied on banks fully fund the FDIC. However, the FDIC does have the ability to borrow money from the US Treasury. So if the FDIC borrows public money to pay losses, it must repay the US Treasury for those borrowed funds. Thus the FDIC would ultimately repay the US Treasury with money from the banking industry (i..e from the “banksters).

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/how-the-fdic-pays-for-bank-failures-1.aspx

But where do you think the banks get the money to pay that FDI fee? I don't think they find it under a old tire. I think they collect it from those with money on deposit in the banks - which is basically the same set of people, I called "tax payers."

If you believe that banks and those who lead them are not in the business of charity and will charge the highest possible prices at any given time, then any additional costs come directly out of pockets of bank shareholders. Because were it not for the FDIC those fees would be pocketed by bank owners.