CreateDebate


JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of JustIgnoreMe's arguments, looking across every debate.
JustIgnoreMe(2208) Clarified
1 point

in reality it probably is a mistranslation - but of raisins. I wonder if they mean the south-park ones...

I certainly don't discourage it - I find it very useful myself, but I don't expect the average person to have sufficient knowledge to build a complete house well.

I would not post the set of facts which evolutionists fool themselves into thinking their way of looking at the data

Exactly - the reference doesn't list evolutionist claims - it posts the claims of the ignorant such as yourself (actually far less ignorant than you), and then debunks them.

Claims that you repeatedly (and erroneously) make like mutations don't add information, macroevolution is different than micro, no transition fossils, etc. etc. have long been addressed (the site was last updated about 10 years ago.)

you seem to accept without question

I don't accept it without question - I understand it the same way everyone else does.

treat an expected future holding as a current holding

Which is why people don't. Thus interest rates based on the duration and confidence in getting paid back.

What part of that do you not get?

posting a bunch of links would hide that

It doesn't hide anything. It says that literally every single person that does accounting agrees with what I've said. And highlights the fact that you can't provide a single decent source that supports your claim that it is not an asset.

according to your view of debts as assets...we should be able to create "wealth" by simply trading in IOUs.

At some point your liabilities would be at the limit of your creditworthiness and people would not lend you any more money. Similarly, banks can only lend up to the point where they can maintain the required reserves.

Its relevant

no, it isn't - create the debate and i'll address it there.

the Feds privilege to engineer inflation

also irrelevant - create the debate and i'll address it there.

Anyone can do a quick Google search on how money ( currency) is created to know the truth of this

Anyone except you that is (ref). In the US, the currency is almost exclusively federal reserve notes (dollars and coins) - there is no such currency as "bank credits". The increase in money supply comes from lending borrowed money based on credit not some tangible thing called "bank credits".

we might have got to actually have a nuanced discussion about that had you not been so busy citing sources that didn't refute any of the points I was making.

By the time you said this:

"If not fraud than its just outright tyranny."

and: "If its more technically correct to refer to it as blatant tyranny rather than fraud I am happy to concede that.", I had posted 3 links and 1 of those was to a clip from the movie Bananas (the other 2 were for currency / reserves ratio for Aug 2014 and current)...

Unchecked

We created the Fed through legislation and could modify it or abolish it the same way.

An asset you expect to acquire is not an asset that you have acquired. You NEVER attempted to rationally address this. You tried to make me look uninformed about how these expected assets are handled in common accounting systems but you never took the time to digest my contention.

I did in multiple ways - not only by showing that EVERYONE considers it such, but demonstrating that you do as well. If you lend $10,000 to someone using a loan contract - would you then turn around and burn that contract - if not, it is because you know that the contract has value even on day one. If it had no value, you would be ok with destroying the piece of paper.

my imprecise statement that I tried to clarify

Even your clarifications indicated that you didn't seem to know what you are talking about. Yes, the terms in this area have very specific meanings - be prepared to use them correctly or be called on it. You act like you were trying to have to some nuanced discussion, but at the first sign of anything technical you called it "bullshit rationale written in financial industry jargon" and then try to hide your errors in claims of impreciseness.

They are the only thing I know of that can.

ME:"It is protected from devaluation (due to increased money supply) in the other forms I mentioned, e.g. commodities"

YOU:"Someone has their head in the sand concerning inflation."

Building something is different than building it right.

To suggest that the average rando (/troll) who literally says "I don't know anything about building", and doesn't express any interest in doing construction for a living, should invest the time to learn about pouring foundations, electrical, plumbing, heating/ac, etc. - along with the build time and money necessary for tools and materials, etc. ignores not only the reality of the work involved, but ignores the power of capitalism to increase efficiencies. Instead of investing the time/money in learning something you are going to do a couple times in your life, you can pay someone who does it for a living to build it much better, quicker, and less expensively.

Or, maybe you think they should build some unpermitted unplumbed microhouse out in the woods that you can never run utilities to, can never insure, that nobody can get a loan to buy in the future, and in most places is not even lawful as a dwelling...?

You sure do like to make guesses about what I am experienced with.

For now, I'll assume your construction knowledge is roughly commiserate with your accounting knowledge - so you think it is master's level, but it is actually below the average lay-person.

why don't you post them and show what is wrong with them?

Done.

"by and large", "80% of", "rare aberration". etc.

Did he screw large numbers of 9 year olds, or one?

medieval age of consent. (there was none back then, by the way; the term was not even heard of. So you're wrong again on THAT with your 10-12 thing.)

Except I posted the reference to laws that DID exist - thanks for noticing...

"An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England"

"A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years"..."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

But hey - "other than that, good post."

You can learn

Spoken like someone who hasn't done much construction.

It seems to me the aim should be keeping inflation to a minimum

Define minimum. The Fed purposefully targets a rate above 0 to prevent deflationary spirals.

Please provide the definition of mutation...

Easy - you just take the opposite of what you said...

You:"changes in genetic expression triggered by environment are not mutations"

Reality:"A mutation is a change that occurs in our DNA sequence, either due to mistakes when the DNA is copied or as the result of environmental factors such as UV light and cigarette smoke."

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-mutation

It's a little like gambling

Is all gambling fraudulent?

thru bail outs

The public made money from the bank bailouts...

"To date, Treasury has recovered $267 billion from TARP’s bank programs through repayments, dividends, interest, and other income – compared to the $245 billion initially invested." - Oct 18, 2012

a means of legally securing the actual object of value

So, a resource for gaining legal control of future economic benefits? - hmmm - if only that was the definition of an asset - oh, wait...

you dodge my point by snipping what you dont want to address

Your second statement was premised on the same misunderstanding as the first - that IOUs are not assets.

relentlessly appealing to authority

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the person is not actually an expert or if there is some reason they are wrong. ref ref

Relentlessly appealing to literally every authority on the subject is an appeal to reality. It's an appeal to the objective reader to compare the tons of evidence given on the one side to the literally 0 evidence along with constant misunderstandings given on the other.

When a loan is taken

Speaking of constant misunderstandings - Do you not even know the difference between taking a loan and making a loan? It is the person who MAKES the loan that gets the receivable/IOU/asset.

If, when you TAKE a loan you create a liability (and assets and liabilities are the two sides of the ledger) - what do you think you get when you MAKE a loan??

learn the difference between contactual documents that reference asset and actual assets

, Expectations ( documented or not) never were and never will truly BE assets

, they are formal or informal agreements CONCERNING assets

See other post

contrary to common sense

See other post

Just wait until you try to explain how money is created in my simple (lending borrowed money to a friend for coffee) example.

Already did (2 hours before your post) - your answer was still that an IOU is not an asset - which is incorrect.

do you think our currency should be commodity backed

That's a different debate (short answer - probably not)

It speaks to your assertion that the creation of money is tied to production.

What part of that's "not what I said. I said the value of money is tied to production." (bolding in the original) did you not understand exactly? I said that production influences whether the VALUE of money changes. (does bold and underline and all caps help??)

As I said days ago "The factors that go into the Fed expanding the money supply are, of course, numerous." - (and yes, one of those factors is production.)

I meant to include all generation of US currency be it federal reserve bank credits or printed dollar.

Whatever you think bank "credits" are, you are mistaken if you think they are currency. The Fed doesn't generate any kind of new currency for all bank loans.

Described a misconception of mine that you have corrected so far.

It might be shorter to list the things you've gotten correct, but here's at least a partial list of what you've gotten wrong thus far:

A) That there's fraud. (the topic of the debate)

B) That there's tyranny.

C) That receivables aren't assets until they are received.

D) That the Fed prints something for each bank loan.

E) That commodities don't protect from monetary inflation.

Common sense would also agree with me here.

If the loan contract has no value, you would have no trouble throwing it away.

If it does have value, it is an asset.

I think we should focus on [loan is an asset] until you understand

Sure. Do any of these help?

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

(Along with the sources previously offered: ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref )

Every single knowledgeable source on the subject agrees with me that receivables (including loan receivables) are assets - governments, schools, accountants, investors, accounting applications, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe you'd like to give a source that agrees with you.

that you think it is a waste of time supports my assertion of uselessness.

show me within whatever philosophy that you subscribe to that there is a way to prove that reality exists.

That is what I am saying doesn't exist. You don't have any way to prove what reality exists beyond your perception. If you think there is a way to prove such a thing, it is up to you to offer it.

How dumb that is will immediately become apparent as soon as you look up what a mutation is.

Please provide the definition of mutation...

utility of a claim makes it more tenable

Nope, only more useful.

Explain more thoroughly

There is nothing to explain - there is no way for you to know whether there is a reality beyond your perception.

What you are controlling is various contractual arrangements

Yes - the contract/IOU/loan is an asset.

When you purchase something, there are 2 assets involved - the money you give and the thing you get - remember the tv example.

The same is true when you purchase an IOU.

Suppose I borrow a 20 from from my roommate in the morning and lend my coworker 2 bucks from that for a coffee, how in the world does that increase the money supply?

Your roommate has an IOU from you for $20 (supposing 0 interest)

You have an IOU from your coworker of $2

Therefore, there are $22 dollars of assets based on $20 in currency

EXACTLY WHAT THE BANK IS DOING.

(You get an IOU from the bank for your deposit. The bank gets an IOU for the loans it makes.)

typically two journal entries are made. One to assets and one to liabilities.

Exactly what I've been saying. The debit is the current money going out and the credit/asset is the loan contract/IOU.

money (in the form of bank credits) is newly created every time specifically for the purpose of serving that loan

I think you are confusing bank credit - the amount that bank can lend as determined by the amount it has on reserves compared to the current reserve requirements - with some kind of "credits".

without a tangible commodity backing

This is fiat/fiduciary currency - not federal reserve banking.

Because the borrower may very likely honor it obviously

Exactly. Which is why you make the trade in the first place - and is your assessment of the value of the asset.

Where did all the fraud and tyranny go??

I think we should keep flushing out the lending borrowed money to a friend example until it make sense to you.

the resource should be controlled

And it is. As I posted on the other side, you do control the asset (the IOU) - it is within your possession, you can partially or fully forgive it, transfer it, use it to file suit in court, etc. etc. If you have a bond, you don't control how the money is spent - is a bond an asset? (The answer you are looking for here is, yes.)

Its hard to educate common sense into someone but I give it a go for kicks in my spare time.

Maybe accounting is a less common sense that you need to invest some time in.

highly speculative "possible future assets"

A) When did a bank deposit become "highly speculative"?

B) When did more speculative assets (options, futures, etc.) become not assets at all?

" debts are assets"

No, LOANS are assets.

Banks treat these highly speculative guarantees as identical to ordinary currency

Again, no. In exchange for currency right now, they get a promise for that amount plus interest in the future. Accounting for estimated inflation over time, creditworthiness, etc.

Production increases aren't what prompt the fed to create new money

And is not what I said. I said the value of money is tied to production.

what prompt the fed to create new money it is new loans

Again - no. As I already pointed out the Fed often increases the money supply when bank lending is low in order to encourage banks to lend more.

Educate yourself

How does your link backup what you say and contradict something I've said?

People should not attempt to look down on others whilst lying on the floor...

A promise made is of no value

Why work for two weeks before you get your first paycheck? Why hold on to a stock or bond rather than throw it away? Why make a loan or invest in the first place if all promises are worthless?

there is deception. It is hidden in purposefully complex language.

Your issue is with: lending borrowed money - how are those 3 words "purposefully complex language"?

Someone has their head in the sand concerning inflation

If you don't know that commodities are the main method people use to avoid monetary inflation, then yes, someone has their head in the sand - you…

inflation consistently outpaces production

Not sure what you think this comparison offers. Inflation happens when the money supply increases faster than production. ref

ALL these monies originating from loans

As you already now admit - not all these loans require printing money.

A gesture of good faith from you and I will take the time to debate it further.

Rather than a gesture of good faith, I just offer corrections to your misconceptions…

JustIgnoreMe(2208) Clarified
1 point

It is the last line of the song I posted above...

controllable asset

You do control the asset (IOU) - you can forgive part or all of it, you can transfer it (unless you both agree otherwise), etc. etc. Are stocks, options, CDs, gold certificates, etc., etc. controllable assets?

RE:If, instead of spending the money, you invest it - your logic would dictate that you have now committed fraud.

You:No. I was clear that I have no problem with people choosing to entrust their money to banks.

You are still missing the point - if you lend/invest borrowed money, you are doing the exact same thing as the bank is doing, including increasing the money supply.

GAAP

GAAP and all other accounting systems that I've ever heard of include loans as assets.

ref ref ref

You really should at least familiarize yourself with accounting 101 when attempting to debate accounting principles.

ordinary banks making ordinary loans do so with intimate involvement of the Federal reserve

I guess you have a very loose definition of intimate. That aggregate banking influences the Fed monetary policy and vice-versa is without question and logical - that the Fed monitors or controls every car loan, etc. would be quite the stretch.

Do you see any reason at all why one might think that was a bad decision?

I know of several reasons people think getting off the gold standard was good/bad, but that is separate from fractional reserve banking.

gold backed currency was once demanded. However, since fractional reserve practices

Again, fractional reserve banking was used for about 200 years before we got off the gold standard.

the value of contracts is in their faithful fulfillment

On day one of a loan, with no payments yet made, what is the value of the IOU? $0? Then why not throw it away?


1 of 142 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]