| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
You guys have to realize
You guys have to realize that this was great exposure for Peter Schiff! I know most of you are complaining because he said nothing new, blah blah blah. What you have to realize, is probably 90% of the Daily Show audience had never heard of Schiff before this, so this was all new to them. They are being exposed to our movement. Schiff is a great speaker, and has a good personality and sense of humor as well! I think this appearance was excellent for us.
http://theconstitutionalists1.blogspot.com
Big up Peter Schiff for cars
Ron Paul had any car rental in Israel for his campaign with the cars and all?
He is a great speaker, and
He is a great speaker, and again, I am excited about him running, BUT he did not really make the case that all of the boom bust cycles are symptoms of the cause, which is the Fed Reserve. And where was any mention of an audit? come on Peter!
Same old
I wish Schiff had offered more in the way of suggestions, but then again he has done this before: get out of the dollar and into foreign stocks/currencies.
Not much new in this video.
For all y'all Canadians
(since Canadians aren't allowed to watch most tvs on the official websites)
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-ste...
[Edit] Sorry, that's the start of the episode, may have some objectionable material, here's the part with Schiff:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-ste...
Ill even be nice...
and help Dodd pack his bags when Schiff sends him HOME!!!
'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul
There are 5 ways to make a purchase
Read Nelson Nash's "Becoming Your Own Banker".
You can lease, loan, cash, invest in c/ds, or be your own banker... you could steal, but we are talking about legal purchases.
Leasing is obviously a loosing propsition, for short term you can afford to loose all your money on a purchase, but you want to actually own something.
You can take a loan, but that means that someone else is charging you interest for the oportunity lost of investing it in the meantime.
You can pay cash, but you are also loosing out on the oportunity cost of letting it earn interest in a bank who would loan it out to venture capitalists.
You can buy c/d's where the bank and its board make large profits but give you a slight interest rate compared to their earnings. A pretty smart move, but not nessecarily the wisest.
The other option would be to 'be the bank'... now you probably can't get a charter, but through 'whole life insurance policies' (with dividend paying options) you can finance your own bank, pay yourself the interest, and still earn money from the fact that it is in a 'money pool' just like the c/d, but there isn't a bank chairman taking his 90% cut off the top.
I highly recommend "becoming your own banker" to anyone wondering about interest. It was written by a member of the Von Mises Institute, and is endorsed by Walter Williams.
Astro: Have you done this yourself
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
A suite of hoi polloi here
A suite of hoi polloi here including myself rest assured lawful to discept the origin of prevail again why it is good. He continues to knock around his point, which makes no typical sense. He does not seem to render through the entirety of the helpful posts because he being thinks he's correct. Glasgow and Fife
Do yourself a aid also apt let right go.
When you power with someone who is strayed assumption also earn it, they are particular to dig up also they engagement show taught. When you stir with someone who is forfeited trust but thinks they know, they are no longer set to pioneer again will not.
Don't waste time with Adam0980!
A lot of people here including myself have tried to explain the purpose of interest and why it is good. He continues to argue his point, which makes no logical sense. He does not seem to read through the entirety of the helpful posts because he already thinks he's correct.
Do yourself a favor and just let it go.
When you deal with someone who is lacking knowledge and realize it, they are willing to learn and they can be taught. When you deal with someone who is lacking knowledge but thinks they know, they are no longer willing to learn and will not.
Google+ Account: www.jmariano.com
About Me:
Filipino|Non-Religious|29yrs. old|Male|Straight|Business Owner
amen, brother.
amen, brother.
I understand completely what
I understand completely what you're saying, even the notion that I'm missing some things. I am just being a hardass because I don't think it's exactly right. I don't deny at all that I don't know everything. That's absolutely the case. What's going on is miscommunication. That's why you feel frustrated and why you feel I lack knowledge and not "willing to learn."
I have to go to bed now but in regards to the topic not once have I seen in this discussion a clear explanation of the cause and origin of interest rates. That is what I am driving at. And I have read all the posts. I also understand completely the purpose of interest and why it's good: it essentially promotes sound wealth. When a loan is done smartly the lender will profit from it because he will get a return on the investment. The person getting will also profit because he increased his productivity and thus became more successful and wealthy. That is the notion behind saying a loan is an investment. It is good, a loan, because it enhances productivity and thus increases wealth. To do the opposite, to be rigid and not loan, decreases productivity and thus innovation and progress etc. and ultimately wealth. I get it. However, I take issue with some things.
Super simple to understand.
I don't think the concept of interest is too hard to understand. In the absence of Charity you are paying to borrow/rent something you need. That is simple.
If I loan you $1000 and ask only that you pay me back $1000 then great I could be nice and charitable and do that.
I don’t want to take the risk of you not paying me back at the agreed time or not at all, or having my money tied up, so I won’t loan you the $1000 unless I can make money from the loan. If I cant make money it’s not worth it for me to loan it out.
So I charge interest or a fee for using my money. You are renting my money.
Look at the $1000 as a car, I could loan you my car for free as you think I should, or I could charge you to rent my car out. It would be charitable of me to simply let you use it.
But I don’t know you and since there is risk I won’t get it back, or it will be damaged, or I might not get it back when we agreed or I might need it while you have it I don’t want to rent it to you. If I could make money from renting it then it would be of value to me to let you use it.
If I loan my car to you free of charge or I loan my money to you free of charge, then that is charity and a nice thing to do. But if I want to charge you for using my stuff then that is basic economics, I want to make money from what I have from the people who need to use what I have.
In the end the risk doesn’t matter or what I might have done with it doesn’t matter. I don’t want to give you money unless you pay me. Since you need the money you will pay me to rent it. Period.
You also benefit for the money you pay me to use my stuff. You have a car when you needed one or you have $1000 when you needed it. If you don’t pay me you don’t have a car or money when you need it.
I win and you win.
Pretty darn simple.
As I've mentioned, I do
As I've mentioned, I do believe part of the issue here is miscommunication. Maybe it's my fault, but I haven't thought of charity as zero gain. I thought charity is thought of as a loss. So if you loan me 1000 and I give it back, if you define that as charity than yeah maybe part of the disagreement here is miscommunication, as I've suggested.
I don't have any real problem with a loan being used as an investment, say like venture capitalist. I get it.
well...
but there is a loss...
if he thinks there is a good chance he might need that money, wouldn't he charge you more interest?
or for the car analogy: if he was running low on milk and knew he would have to use his car to go buy more if he wanted to eat his breakfast cereal, he would charge you more than he would if he had no food at all. so he's certainly at a loss by loaning you the car for the day, as he is giving up his milk in the first scenario, and the second he is giving up food and is going to have to forage for the day.
so if he knows for sure that he isn't going to need that car in the meantime, and if he knows for sure that he will face no possible chance of a loss from giving you the money, he's going to charge you a zero interest rate...
but life is anything but certain, he can't know for sure if something important weren't going to come up and he needed the money or the car while it was loaned to you (resulting in a loss for him)
and he can't know for sure that you won't steal or devalue the car or return it late...(resulting in a loss)
so I guess what I'm saying boils down to this: if you can't see the future (and are not, without a shadow of a doubt- for sure- 100%- bet'cher life, certain that you will suffer no loss of any kind - whatsoever - from the loan) you can't charge zero interest, unless you're just a die-hard altruist who doesn't care about losses... the greater the chances for a loss ( or a greater loss) results in higher rates... only in utopian fantasylands do frugal people offer zero interest rates (if that's true, I wonder in which one Bernanke lives...)
(p.s.: from what the above posts say; if I have just "enlightened" you, I will be more amazed than anyone, as I really have no idea what I'm talking about. Up until a few minute ago, I knew next to nothing about interest rates... So, thanks DPers for the stimulation, thats what this place is all about...)
-Paix and Liberte
The Libertarian Roots of Marxist Class-Conflict Theory
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
Yeah charity to me is a
Yeah charity to me is a willingness to give up something of value (to both the person giving and the person recieving). You could give something forever, or the short term; like labor is short term or borrowing an item (money, car, whatever).
But in the absense of charity someone isnt likely to give away something or loan something for nothing.
If I have something you need yes I could give it to you then you could give it back. It seems as though nothing was lost. You did gain, I did not.
So you got "something" plus (the value of what was done with it).I got nothing. Sure I got my "something" back but as for the transaction I got nothing from it. You gained from the transaction.
So nothing wrong with me wanting to gain as well and you should feel obligated to want me to gain since you gained.
So yeah this was partly an
So yeah this was partly an argument because of miscommunication. I do think however a lot of what you guys are getting at is partly imaginary. I mean if someone didn't even know about the notion of opportunity cost, they wouldn't realize what they are "losing." But I do understand what you are saying and I also am with you and others hear that using a loan as an investment is fine. I mean if i helped support finance a film I think it makes sense to get the benefits of that. I understand that.
Wouldnt take long to realize
Wouldnt take long to realize they were losing though.... as soon as they loaned out something and never got it back or needed it after it was gone and had to borrow from someone else but couldnt..etc..etc..
I bet you that learning experience didnt take long in the beginning.
I see a loan not just as an investment its the exchange of a service.
Why should you gain and not me? that is where I am not understanding.
Why should you be the only one to gain something for borrowing the $1000. You gain opportunity you didnt have before. Then you give back the $1000. You gained I didnt. Why?
forget risk...why should you gain and not me is where I am lost.
I don't really want to get
I don't really want to get into the opportunity cost aspect. Cost that I think is a little more complicated.
As far me gaining and you not, a couple things. I understand now how it's being defined as the loaner or i guess now the one doing the charity is not gaining. I see that. I still take issue with it on some level. I mean part of the miscommunication going on here is that I am coming from a perspective of psychology and the way economics operates seems to be at odds with that in someways. Someways. Not all ways.
Anyway, under how your saying things, to the question of why should I "gain" and not u, where you are lost. This is a great issue and thanks for getting at it. I would say the answer goes to the charity and altruism. You should do it because the person you are loaning to needs help.
To bring it full circle, this does go back to what Ron Paul says about in a free market dynamic, you don't throw off those below the line, suffering or whatever. You help out, volunteer etc.
This also illuminates the trouble and fear with the free market dynamic. In other words, the fear that in such dynamic people won't help out, people won't consider issues not associated with their gains. This rationale is the very thing preventing pure free market economics...people are assholes and greedy, selfish people. Now I love the free market dynamic as much as anyone here, but I am also able to understand the argument against it. And frankly I think it is understandable. Do I want another form? No, I get the point behind free market economics and that it is the best dynamic and has the potential for the best gains. But do I think the free market dynamic would be filled with people like Ron Paul who genuinely care about other human beings and is interested in the well being of people in general as much as individual people? No, people are assholes and many people wouldn't give a shit about people less off etc. This is why people fear a pure free market dynamic. Is what we have today better? Of course not. But it exists as a reaction to the fear of that dynamic. I'm getting off topic a little but the dilemma has substance.
EDIT: In other words, free market economics is the best form. I get it. It is the most efficient, pure, and socially beneficial dynamic. People are free to act in the best way. But it also can be a monstrous policy. Not everyone is like Ron Paul who has altruism and charity as a motivator. This isn't Hong Kong. The desire to conquer and trump others does exist in our society. Why that's the case is something else?
I'm also not comparing this to today's reality. I don't want to get into that. I agree today's collusion of corporation and government is disgusting.
I think everyone here is
I think everyone here is talking about a reasonable rate of return on the selling of good or service. (Loaning something is providing a service as well). People can be free to be greedy sure, but in the end there are consequences to it that makes it in their best interest to be charitable. So people are less likely to be greedy…no one will do business with a greedy person (unless forced through regulations ;))), If you are taking all the money from people, and give nothing back you contribute to poverty then have to live within the environment that poverty creates.
For me personally charity is important and when it can be done it’s not just the morally correct thing to do, it’s a necessity of life. I just want to be the one to decide where and how. The problem is we have abdicated that responsibility to the government. Rather than thinking about helping others we are focused on making money to survive to pay the taxes that are suppose to be used to help others. We no longer have a mindset that encourages charitable giving. We have turned over the personal responsibility to help others with the fruits of our labor to the politicians; and by doing so they take more and more of our income that could be used as charity in the name of charity, so we have less to give.
It’s not morally wrong to make money from the loaning of money, it’s morally wrong to charge beyond what is reasonable (people can say that is subjective but I don’t think it is).
If I want to give you money it requires me to have the resources. I got the resources from doing something. Everyone has to work for everything. If money grew on trees you would still have to pick it off the tree. Everything we do takes resources and requires effort.
It takes money to make money as they say but it takes money to give money. A pure free market only works when the fundamentals are in place and followed. Giving and receiving. If I give you something for free returning that to someone else or back to me is required for society to function. This is the problem with current welfare state. If I gave you money you would connect with me and appreciate it from one human to another. If a cold non human entity like a government gives you something while it takes something from you it’s not appreciation but entitlement that comes from it.
Sounds like you agree with all that I just wanted to ramble on a bit more haha.
Good example of charitable loaning http://www.kiva.org/
Yeah, I agree with
Yeah, I agree with everything.
A free-market dynamic is
A free-market dynamic is amazing because even if people are greedy/selfish- the only way they can become successful in a free-market is by satisfying the mass-consumer demand. If you don't want free-markets then you are arguing in FAVOR of violence- not the other way around.
A free-market policy can't be a monstrous policy because it is the OPPOSITE of conquering others through force.
I know people have been throwing you examples of interest- but here's another one that doesn't involve currency. Lets say you have a lot of tomato seeds but you don't know how to grow them. There is someone who does know how to grow them but he doesn't have the money to get any seeds. So lets say you lend him your tomato seeds in exchange that he give you, lets say, 5 tomatoes from what he grows out of it. Those 5 tomatoes are the interest from the seeds that were given. Is there any evil here?
Well, I don't know what to
Well, I don't know what to say. I agree with you that the dynamic is amazing because you have to satisfy the mass consumer demand. So to follow your thinking, do you not think greedy, selfish, disgusting people will not think up ways of doing that with malice. People lie. People take advantage of people. People are afraid. People are stupid.
As for the tomato, I am with ya. It's just like venture capitalist. Although, couldn't the dude just learn how to grow the tomatoes.
Of course people lie, take
Of course people lie, take advantage of people, and people are stupid, etc. But that is present in every society. The difference is that when you do not have free-markets, you legalize theft and violence via the government. Free-markets does not mean a utopian society where everyone is perfect, it just means this is the society with the most freedom, highest standard of living, etc. It is where the people who are violent do not have the most power and success, but the ones who can make the most people happy are.
He could learn how to grow tomatoes- but maybe he doesn't have enough time or just isn't good with his hands. There can be a number of reasons.
Yeah, I agree with you.
Yeah, I agree with you. It's not about perfect. And I agree that when it's not free market, you legalize theft and violence. You allow fascism. Yeah, I know it as much as others. I am suggesting the opposite side of the spectrum as well. In other words, like I said in another response, in a true free market dynamic, if there is not that aspect of charity and altruism etc. and/or a certain level of knowledge and awareness, it will fail.
But there is always charity-
But there is always charity- there's still charity right now despite huge government welfare programs and destruction of wealth. Do you think people will give more or less to charity if they had more wealth? With the government you assure they have less wealth. Also since everyone's living standards would be much improved- less charity is needed.
I think the fear that suddenly people will hate the idea of charity in a free-market society doesn't really make sense. The reason there is such a HUGE need for charity at the present is because of government involvement in destroying the wealth of this country. There are more good people out there than bad- and if some think that stealing other people's wealth is the only way to help the downtrodden is very narrow-minded to me.
Adam
Money can be defined as a storage of a persons individual labor, mental and physical effort, creativity etc. Once you understand that, then you should understand why a person shouldn't be expected to loan it without a return unless for charity. If I work one day and make $200 and loan it to you I expect a little more when you pay me back because I take a risk that I won't get it back and I can't do anything with it while you have it. When you pay me back with interest, I'll be more inclined to loan to you again. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. I'm loaning you my stored labor and your paying me back with yours. No one should be expected to take a chance at losing the stored wealth of a day's labor unless they stand to gain for doing so.
However, when you consider fractional reserves and printing money out of thin air, then loaning money for interest by banks is a scam and should be a crime.
I'm sorry but I am right in
I'm sorry but I am right in what I am suggesting. I understand your reasoning overall and it makes sense. However, it equally doesn't seem evident that you have thought through the relationship between loaning the $200 and the expectation that you should receive more than you gave simply because of some abstract notion (i.e. risk). It seems the rationale behind interest, at least the way you're characterizing it, is that there is a theoretical event that could happen. In other words, where is the risk? I want to know where the risk is. It seems the risk is in your head, in the lender's head.
It isn't abstract
or theoretical. If I have only $10 to my name and no food and I loan my $10 to you for a day on the agreement that you will pay me back $20 tomorrow I am taking a risk. The risk is that rather than going one day without food in order to double my money, you don't pay back and I don't eat until I either borrow myself or store more labor.
well said
Yep that pretty much sums it up nicely.