• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Economic Ideology

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
_______________________________

Our Economy is in Shamble

The consequences, the Great Depression and history tells us, will necessarily be a Formidable Chaos:

Social and political turmoils, and military adventures.

Neither supranational bodies nor governments can propose a plausible solution.


It is our responsability to create a meaningful increment of jobs, revenues and investments:

We urgently need the only plausible solution that is offered to us:

An Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Economy.

It is your duty to insure your security and economic survival, no one else will do that for you!

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.

_______________________________

Credit Free Economy
More Jobs, No Debt, No Fear.
Prosperous, Fair and Stable.
Innovative Credit Free, Free Market Post Crash Economy.

_______________________________
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Interesting.

I had someone present to me an idea of perpetual employment and continual infrastructure maintenance and repair via a non-representative union which is independent of the government.

That made more sense and seemed far more plausible.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How can you have an economy that is both credit-free and free market when there are natural markets for credit?
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you mean that "I had someone present to me an idea of perpetual employment and continual infrastructure maintenance and repair via a non-representative union which is independent of the government." is more plausible?
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is also a natural market for hard drugs, crime, violent death. Being civilized means getting rid of some of our animal behaviors. Don't you agree sir? :cool:
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is also a natural market for hard drugs, crime, violent death. Being civilized means getting rid of some of our animal behaviors. Don't you agree sir? :cool:
I have no problem with the legalization of hard drugs, as well as soft drugs, prostitution, and gambling. I think that the decriminalization of those behaviors is more civilized than the hell that we put those convicted of breaking laws against those particular behaviors.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You didn't answer about violent crimes. We might discuss about the way we prevent or punish these crimes but if you pretend we must just live like beats, It is your choice. Using our system is the result of a free choice, you made yours and I am not even going to try to make you think otherwise.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You didn't answer about violent crimes. We might discuss about the way we prevent or punish these crimes but if you pretend we must just live like beats, It is your choice. Using our system is the result of a free choice, you made yours and I am not even going to try to make you think otherwise.
I didn't answer because I don't see what violent crimes have to do with credit markets or the free market. And you have yet to tell me.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is a very bare sketch of how an economy would work that raises a lot of questions.

First off, what is wrong with credit? Credit allows people to spread the cost of innovation over time, in particular into the period that the investment will begin paying dividends so that the person receiving the benefit of the investment (your future self) is contributing to that which benefited them. In addition, credit allows money to be transfered from those with established wealth to entrepeneurs who drive new growth beyond that which buying shares does.

Second, how free of a market are we talking? No regulations whatsoever? Some regulations but not others? What about taxation? What about national industries like the Post Office? What is the scope and role of government? What about free trade and immigration (the allowing of both is an important aspect of the free market)? Your sketch hasn't really answered those questions.

Finally, what would replace credit? Credit is vitally important in starting new investment and encouraging spending. What system do you propose to replace that? Savings are good and all, but without the option to turn savings into loans their use as sources of investment funds is distinctly limited. Without loans, any new business requiring a large amount of capital to start up is probably screwed before it gets off the ground unless someone already rich starts it (thereby weakening social mobility).

I can't support such a bare bones idea without a lot more fleshing out. At first glance it looks like a reactionary anti-bank stance which has looked at the downsides of the financial system without considering any of the positives it provides, thereby falling into the trap of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No credit? How do people buy new cars or college education, start new business, are people gonna pay for houses in cash?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do you mean that "I had someone present to me an idea of perpetual employment and continual infrastructure maintenance and repair via a non-representative union which is independent of the government." is more plausible?
Yes - my one sentence summary surely did no justice to the entire theory - but it didn't harp on "never borrow money again" (aka - get rid of credit) - or "people need to buy more stuff" (aka - increase consumption).

The actual problem we're having right now is (in part - not completely) because people were buying too much stuff - with credit - for which they went into debt for - which tightened up their spending money further - and they found their selves no longer able to continue to buy stuff, no longer able to afford the basics. . . and needing to borrow more money just to cover these basics (you know - food, utilities) . . . when credit was tapped out many people just let go of the highest monthly expense: mortgage payments. . . which spiraled into our current housing-market slump.

This is where we are/have been for quite some time.

Then, when there's this type of credit crunch and people's basic income is *woosh - out the window* you're stuck where we are right now for quite some time - credit owed for stuff that no one needed (there's your increased consumption) - and no way to pay it off - and people bailing on their loans and in other areas to just make it by, hoping something will change - and it won't have to be their lifestyle.

Your presented economic upheaval is really supporting socialism and is not realizing or accepting that:

1) Credit is someone's *decision* to borrow money. . . it is a loan . . . given by a company (bank, credit-company, etc). It is voluntary.
2) This loaned amount must be payed back *with interest* - as is agreed on when you sign your contract for that credit.
3) Interest is calculated based on RISK. . . those who are poor managers of money, show the inability to pay-off debts (which include utilities, other credit owed, loan payments like mortgage and auto) climb *higher* into this 'risk' category. Thus - they pay more in interest because one loaning them money is taking more of a risk they won't get that same money back (which is just a fact).

It is hence the duty of society to make sure that by pursueing his best interest each of the economic agents help the society to reach its goals: income distribution in order to maximize demand and transactions, reach a zero involuntary unemployment rate, and insure that all of its members can at least survive.
This 'innovative' system you linked to actually does nothing to try to fix economic-related issues listed here.

Whereas the theory that I briefly mentioned does, indeed, address several of these issues in a very realistic and logical way that doesn't actually require people to alter their outlook, plan or goals in life. . . nor does it attempt to tell people how much they can or should spend - or what type of spending needs to be done more.

Thus - yes - the theory, however unlikely it is to actually occur, is far more plausible as a working solution to answer several of our country's current problems which are unemployment, a failing infrastructure, and a constantly expanding government.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Credit is bad because it discriminate: if you are poor you don't get any if you are richer you get some with high interest rate if you are even richer you get a lot without interest rate at all.

Most of the questions you are asking I deal with at Innovative Credit Free, Free Market, Economic Ideology

Of course I stand ready to discuss each point and improve the model if possible.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First there is that common mistake that analysis the economic failure as the result of bad moral behavior and create guilt. That is wrong. The problem is not that you got into too much debt it is that you got into it without knowing that your income in the future will not be sufficient to reimburse that debt.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You make it feel like credit is given to the good people and not given to the bad people. Credit is given to the rich and not given to the poor. To equate rich and good and poor and bad is your choice not mine. At one point you won't be able to pay back your credit, may be it will change your point of view about what is good or bad,
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You may call it Socialism, Communism or Anarchy I really don't care. If you participate or not is your decision. My model is plausible the Capitalist model has failed, it is indefensible.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you think of it my model respect much more freedom than the other one: we just intend to change the direction of the invisible hand not create a visible one.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First I am aware that my system although incremental to the prevalent ideology and not meaning to replace it will raise a lot of question. This is precisely why I am debating here.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First off, what is wrong with credit? Credit allows people to spread the cost of innovation over time, in particular into the period that the investment will begin paying dividends so that the person receiving the benefit of the investment (your future self) is contributing to that which benefited them. In addition, credit allows money to be transfered from those with established wealth to entrepeneurs who drive new growth beyond that which buying shares does.
What is wrong with credit is that it discriminate, it leverage the advantage of those who are more lucky because they were born richer or have more natural gifts. The consequence is that it decrease the revenues of the poorer compared to the investments of the richer and as a consequence lower the return on investment. Now it has come to the point that the level of investments is getting much lower than what is required in order to sustain our present lifestyle.

At the present moment there is no investments so the argument about transferring wealth to entrepreneurs is irrelevant.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Second, how free of a market are we talking? No regulations whatsoever? Some regulations but not others? What about taxation? What about national industries like the Post Office? What is the scope and role of government? What about free trade and immigration (the allowing of both is an important aspect of the free market)? Your sketch hasn't really answered those questions.
We are concerned about providing incremental jobs, consumption, and investments. We are concerned about the economy not the governments, which is none of our concern. Yes we want to make the free market as free as possible and try to lower regulation to its bare minimum. We know that there is no way that a government regulate efficiently both investment and consumption. Most of the activities of the economic policies of governments are meant to alleviate the dysfunctions of the prevalent ideology. Our pretense is that if we correct the dysfunctions of this system the governments will have no excuse to inflate the way they do.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Finally, what would replace credit? Credit is vitally important in starting new investment and encouraging spending. What system do you propose to replace that? Savings are good and all, but without the option to turn savings into loans their use as sources of investment funds is distinctly limited. Without loans, any new business requiring a large amount of capital to start up is probably screwed before it gets off the ground unless someone already rich starts it (thereby weakening social mobility).
This is what we say: there will be competition between existing businesses and private enterprise under the present prevalent system that will still exist and will stay beyond our reach. At the same time we emit our currency to everybody in an equal way (as opposed to the present which prefers the banks, and then the richer and forget the poorer altogether. Those people will manage that for the society, and receive retribution for it, in the way they chose. As long as there is no dishonest use of that money we won't interfere with how it is invested. As far as social mobility it is, from our point of view, a legend which is not backed by any statistical evidence. Yes you can get the winning ticket but you can't build your future on the assumption you will get it.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I can't support such a bare bones idea without a lot more fleshing out. At first glance it looks like a reactionary anti-bank stance which has looked at the downsides of the financial system without considering any of the positives it provides, thereby falling into the trap of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Yes it is an anti-bank stance but the reactionaries are the banks because credit does keep their social status, they even managed to make you believe that they are systemic and you are worthless to the system. What I say is that the emission institution belongs to us and the money should be emitted to the good of society not for the good of some privileged who get it for cheap and lend you your money in an expensive way without even shouldering the so called systemic risk (risk for which they are rewarded)

I am not falling in the trap of of throwing out the baby with the bath water not only we don't intend to abolish the present system but we will provide incremental demand to the existing system without which all of the existing businesses will have to be liquidated.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Credit is bad because it discriminate: if you are poor you don't get any if you are richer you get some with high interest rate if you are even richer you get a lot without interest rate at all.

Most of the questions you are asking I deal with at Innovative Credit Free, Free Market, Economic Ideology

Of course I stand ready to discuss each point and improve the model if possible.
Credit does not discriminate.
It is not given based on how much money you *earn*

Trust me - I've been dirt poor and still was able to sign up for credit cards, buy a truck, and buy a house.

What goes UP is your INTEREST that you pay *because* of your *credit history* - it has nothing to do with how much money you actually earn.

Now - it *should* - a bank *should* watch out for it's bottom line. IF they had done so then we wouldn't be IN this housing market and otherwise economic crunches (not all of it - but some areas are purely in shambles because of credit *not* being very discriminatory) . . . so our problems is caused by the exact opposite of how you believe the credit-industry works.

First there is that common mistake that analysis the economic failure as the result of bad moral behavior and create guilt. That is wrong. The problem is not that you got into too much debt it is that you got into it without knowing that your income in the future will not be sufficient to reimburse that debt.
So here you're actually contradicting your theory that you're presenting.
In your theory it's supported that credit is overall purely a bad thing and must be done away with.
But in this quote you're saying that your debt (from taking credit) isn't *bad* - it's that people's future pay was lost that made their *too much debt* bad.

Which is it - credit, overall, is bad?
Or that debt - overall - is bad because people ended up losing their jobs?

And they lost their jobs because?
What is your theory going to do to give them other jobs and fix this hole in the job-market? Absolutely nothing.

You make it feel like credit is given to the good people and not given to the bad people. Credit is given to the rich and not given to the poor. To equate rich and good and poor and bad is your choice not mine. At one point you won't be able to pay back your credit, may be it will change your point of view about what is good or bad,
Credit is given to everyone.
Interest is calculated based on risk - which comes from credit *history*

The only people who are fortunate enough to miss out are the people who *have no credit* and that has nothing to do with *income* - You can be filthy rich and still have NO or horribly LOW credit.

Why do you think that all rich people have good credit?
Why do you think that all poor people have bad credit?

I'm a living example of the opposite:

I was poor - had *no* credit - and when I did get a loan for my truck and house I still had *really bad credit* and I was still officially *poor* - so my loan came with a whopping 13% interest rate.
But - I started to *care* and *manage my money* and I was then paying bills *on time* for quite some time.
Then my credit score improved *because* was in more control of my money - in fact, it was quite stellar for some time (well over 730) - but I was still officially *poor*
See- my improved credit was based on my credit-history and *not* my income.
When my credit improved - because I was paying my bills on time - I was then able to re-finance my truck for a much lower interest rate.

Now we're far better off - money wise (we're not officially rich but we're definitely not classified as poor anymore) - but our credit is back in the doghouse *because* we got back into horrible spending/bill paying habits (paying bills late - or not at all - because over-spending on crap we didn't need to have took all of our money)

VO77:
Your views are being drawn from a lack of knowledge of the system, why it was formed, the purpose it serves, and why it is useful.
You need to educate yourself more on the subject before you decide whether it's bad or good.
 
Last edited:

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Credit does not discriminate.
It is not given based on how much money you *earn*

Trust me - I've been dirt poor and still was able to sign up for credit cards, buy a truck, and buy a house.

What goes UP is your INTEREST that you pay *because* of your *credit history* - it has nothing to do with how much money you actually earn.

Now - it *should* - a bank *should* watch out for it's bottom line. IF they had done so then we wouldn't be IN this housing market and otherwise economic crunches (not all of it - but some areas are purely in shambles because of credit *not* being very discriminatory) . . . so our problems is caused by the exact opposite of how you believe the credit-industry works.
The bad new is you don't know what is being dirt poor. The good new is you will learn very soon.

Your credit history is more about what you have than anything else I challenge you to get credit on the same terms as Bill Gates or any bank.

Credit does discriminate the amount you get and the interest rate at which you get it are exponential functions of your wealth.

What would you say if I wouldn't sell you an Ice Cream because you are black man with two girls living in a white house in Washington and would sell 5 five at a low price because you are a blond single woman living in a Manhattan Penthouse?

If examined objectively Credit is unconstitutional in every country enforcing the free market ideology.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So here you're actually contradicting your theory that you're presenting.
In your theory it's supported that credit is overall purely a bad thing and must be done away with.
But in this quote you're saying that your debt (from taking credit) isn't *bad* - it's that people's future pay was lost that made their *too much debt* bad.

Which is it - credit, overall, is bad?
Or that debt - overall - is bad because people ended up losing their jobs?

And they lost their jobs because?
What is your theory going to do to give them other jobs and fix this hole in the job-market? Absolutely nothing.

You are just mistaking bad from a scientific point of view with bad from a moral point of view. Although some religions (Islam and Judaism) consider that credit with interest is bad from a moral point of view my point of view is strictly economic and I am very worried of the moral and religious conclusions people draw from the present crisis.

It is bad because people end up losing their jobs. The lost jobs coming from the fact that there is insufficient demand as there is not enough money spent in front of the sum of existing investments. What is urgent is to restore the demand for good and services which means to increase the amount of money in the pocket of those who have the highest marginal propensity to consume. So in effect by creating demand we will offer people jobs and fix the hole in the jobs market, which obviously others are incapable of doing.
 

V07768198309

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Location
Tel Aviv, Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Credit is given to everyone.
Interest is calculated based on risk - which comes from credit *history*

The only people who are fortunate enough to miss out are the people who *have no credit* and that has nothing to do with *income* - You can be filthy rich and still have NO or horribly LOW credit.

Why do you think that all rich people have good credit?
Why do you think that all poor people have bad credit?

I'm a living example of the opposite:

I was poor - had *no* credit - and when I did get a loan for my truck and house I still had *really bad credit* and I was still officially *poor* - so my loan came with a whopping 13% interest rate.
But - I started to *care* and *manage my money* and I was then paying bills *on time* for quite some time.
Then my credit score improved *because* was in more control of my money - in fact, it was quite stellar for some time (well over 730) - but I was still officially *poor*
See- my improved credit was based on my credit-history and *not* my income.
When my credit improved - because I was paying my bills on time - I was then able to re-finance my truck for a much lower interest rate.

Now we're far better off - money wise (we're not officially rich but we're definitely not classified as poor anymore) - but our credit is back in the doghouse *because* we got back into horrible spending/bill paying habits (paying bills late - or not at all - because over-spending on crap we didn't need to have took all of our money)
I already said what I had to say about credit history and the like. About credit discrimination you are living in an imaginary wonderland which will not pass the test of time. There is an enormous advantage of dealing with economics: in Mathematics you need to prove, in Politics and Religions you need to believe while in economics you just need to feel: even a monkey will understand economics when the supply of bananas vanishes.
 
Top Bottom