MrSmith Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 You should give up mind reading, you're not very good at it Make yourself clear and I wouldn't have to guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Make yourself clear and I wouldn't have to guess.If you read what I type you wouldn't have to guess either. Out of interest, I've been unhappy about money being loaned into existence for as long as I've known that's how it works. Obviously, it would be difficult to be unhappy about something that one doesn't know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 If you read what I type you wouldn't have to guess either. Out of interest, I've been unhappy about money being loaned into existence for as long as I've known that's how it works. Obviously, it would be difficult to be unhappy about something that one doesn't know about. Do you think you would be better off if money had never been loaned into existence and we still used a barter system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Do you think you would be better off if money had never been loaned into existence and we still used a barter system.The two are not related. Money just doesn't have to be loaned into existence. Money can just be created, as it is now, but without the need for us tax payers to pay back the interest on it (plus the principle, should it be asked for). Money can still be used. Us tax payers should not have the responsibility of paying interest on something that was created out of thin air. No need for bartering. Did greenbacks mean a return to bartering for the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 The two are not related. Money just doesn't have to be loaned into existence. Money can just be created, as it is now, but without the need for us tax payers to pay back the interest on it (plus the principle, should it be asked for). Money can still be used. Us tax payers should not have the responsibility of paying interest on something that was created out of thin air. No need for bartering. Did greenbacks mean a return to bartering for the US? Printing more money doesn’t improve economic output in it just causes inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Can the UK afford to house and feed the world, and how much would you give up to achieve this. I believe there are too many humans on the planet and it is this fact that leaves people starving, we are after all just one of the many animals on this planet, and nature will always find a balance. The uk doesn’t have to feed the world. The world can feed the world. And, on a planetary scale, there’s more than enough resources to go around if they were all shared the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 The uk doesn’t have to feed the world. The world can feed the world. And, on a planetary scale, there’s more than enough resources to go around if they were all shared the right way. I agree, if everything was shared out equality there would be enough for everyone to live without being hungry, I don't think it would stretch to everyone having a car, centrally heated house, computer, holidays abroad, and an whole plethora of luxury items. So would you give up the car if you have one and what else would you give up so everyone can have an equal share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Printing more money doesn’t improve economic output in it just causes inflation.Just like it does under the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I agree, if everything was shared out equality there would be enough for everyone to live without being hungry, I don't think it would stretch to everyone having a car, centrally heated house, computer, holidays abroad, and an whole plethora of luxury items. So would you give up the car if you have one and what else would you give up so everyone can have an equal share. You could hand out 10,000 pounds to every person in the UK and say "Here you are. We're all equal now. Utopia has arrived at last" Five years later on there would be those who wouldn't have a penny left to scratch their asses with and there would be those who have increased that 10,000 pounds tenfold or a hundredfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 [/b] You could hand out 10,000 pounds to every person in the UK and say "Here you are. We're all equal now. Utopia has arrived at last" Five years later on there would be those who wouldn't have a penny left to scratch their asses with and there would be those who have increased that 10,000 pounds tenfold or a hundredfold. That sounds about right and if we shared everything out equally to everyone on the planet I doubt we could stretch to £10,000 and it wouldn’t buy much, and in a couple of years we would all have nothing but at least we would be equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.