This is just a teory of mine winhout much basis in reality since I dont know any economist or anything, but I believe the problem of economics is that it has become something so huge, intricated and complex that there is not one mind powerful enough to understand the whole situation completly. Winhout such an understanding, we only have loads of people making bets of how things will turn out if X thing is done rather than certainty, what creates unforeseen consequences.

Money is a form of relationship...If one person in a relationship has it all it loses meaning....

The monotary policies of the past have been used to lesson or avoid depressions....

When the republicans learned they could use economic policy to make the rich richer, and to push the economy past the point of destruction it was open season on the wealth of the nation... Now what??? All their bubbles are popping at once, and the one guy with any ability to deal with the problem they hate and want to see fail...

My turn: Nonsense back at you...Look at your money...Is it worth anything by itself??? It says legal tender for all debts...Law is another form... What it means is, that having debts, our money cannot be legally refused... But it only has the meaning we give to it... So it is a form of relationship... If we decide to see money for what it is, then the man with a billion of them becomes rich in paper...
If you try to say the meaning of money is trust, you are only defining one form of relationship with another...

There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

Everything only has the meaning we give to it.

Money wouldn't have any utility if it wasn't a means of procuring other goods, but that is it's entire purpose. You might as well say that hats wouldn't have any value if we didn't have heads: You would be correct, but why say such a thing?

Money has its own value, even if it isn't intrinsic, in that it provides us with liquidity. If someone came to you and said "I have a $20 shirt, a $20 gift certificate, and a $20 bill, choose one." which would you choose? Barring extraordinary circumstances where the shirt or the gift certificate is first on your shopping list, you would take the money over those because it is liquid, it provides options.

Relationships? Meh. I don't know what that means in this context. But if one person has all of the money, it does not lose its meaning. Where do you think all of this money is coming from? All of this money flooding the economy right now, it originated from one source that exchanges it into the market. Does the money come in meaningless?

So money provides liquidity. But if all the money is on one side, then there is no liquidity. The have-nots then becomes the slaves of the monopoly. And slaves have a tendency to get angry at being slaves. Its nearly always worth the risk of life to fight for freedom. So those that rig the system to have everything, are destroying their own future. Look what happenned to the Russian Tzars, the French aristocracy.

I do not for one second ascribe to the idea that 'its all too complicated to understand'. One does not need to know the exact position of every atom in a glass plate to realize that if you drop it from the roof onto concrete, then it will break. The overarching principle is quite easy to realize.

The aim of liquidity is to make life easier. The ultimate easy life is where everything is free because society is mega-productive. So when the kleptocracy deliberately uses money to prevent an easy free life, in order to make people slaves, they negate the purpose of money altogether.

This same old drama has caused almost all the wars in history.

Idealistically, if everyone just did their best to make society work, there would be no need for money, and in such a world, the trade of goods would be as liquid as needs dictated. As society becomes more and more productive, this becomes the goal.

Of course this is a mammoth 'if', but realizing what the ideal goal is, becomes the first step in attaining it. Unfortunately there are many people who get a pathological kick out of holding people to ransom, but as each social breakdown is recorded in better detail than the last, we can only move closer to the goal of the 'cashless society'. Heaven on Earth. Zion.

I do not for one second ascribe to the idea that 'its all too complicated to understand'. One does not need to know the exact position of every atom in a glass plate to realize that if you drop it from the roof onto concrete, then it will break. The overarching principle is quite easy to realize.

The aim of liquidity is to make life easier. The ultimate easy life is where everything is free because society is mega-productive. So when the kleptocracy deliberately uses money to prevent an easy free life, in order to make people slaves, they negate the purpose of money altogether.

Idealistically, if everyone just did their best to make society work, there would be no need for money, and in such a world, the trade of goods would be as liquid as needs dictated. As society becomes more and more productive, this becomes the goal.

I fail to see how this is analogous.



I agree with this.



The role of pricing in an economy in allowing capital allocation according to aggregate supply and demand is an extremely important function.

I would say that the object of easy liquidity is to ease the transfere of value to the rich... The game would have been over for the rich a long time ago without control over the money supply

Some posters on here and on other forums accuse me of being an apologetic for the wealthy since I am libertarian, anti-state, and pro-market.

I think it is very important for people to understand how the government facilitates centralized wealth accumulation through monetary policy is very important. Unfortunately, I somehow doubt even this crisis will teach the lesson. It hasn't yet; it has only made it worse.

I do not for one second ascribe to the idea that 'its all too complicated to understand'. One does not need to know the exact position of every atom in a glass plate to realize that if you drop it from the roof onto concrete, then it will break. The overarching principle is quite easy to realize.

Idealistically, if everyone just did their best to make society work, there would be no need for money, and in such a world, the trade of goods would be as liquid as needs dictated. As society becomes more and more productive, this becomes the goal.

But the more you know about the glass plate and whatever influences its fall and break, greater the chances of you throwing it in a place where it wont hurt anyone.

I agree with that ideal view.

Im getting a "Rich X Poor" conspiracy air from some posts here. I would like to comment that egocentric people are very unlikely to work togheder with many others, nor can a conspiracy be passed down from father to son with ease, so I strongly believe against the existence of "Rich X Poor" conspiracies.

I agree that the corruption of the rich part of the society can have a major negative impact in a country and is always happening in pretty much ever country, but I do not think there is a conspiracy or pact or deal between then. It just happens that they are all pushing the rock the same way winhout noticing, or not caring, that there are other people pushing the rock that same way.