company reform: the stronger citizens than banks?

[FPLM]

It is up to citizens to mobilize, even if it means bringing out the guillotine if necessary ...

The exponential of distributed money creation is softer but more powerful than the guillotine :-)

Yes, indeed, but the banks know this subject better than we do and we will not let it go. The latent crisis in place is also a liquidity crisis, it is not for nothing. They know full well that money is our lifeline.
Unless perhaps to say shit to the euro and restore national currencies but that, I doubt that the population sees a salvation in the short term ...
European policy prohibits you from circumventing the system so at one time or another, it is necessary to marginalize yourself by violating its inhuman rules. European agricultural policy is one of the proofs.
The prohibition of the trade or cultivation of seeds other than those requiring the assistance of agrochemicals is nothing other than an economic issue, that of the agrochemical industry and the banks that finance them. Natural agriculture has no chance of survival in this economic and political context.
In my opinion it cannot be done so easily, the capitalists will not allow it.
However, I want the future to prove you right ...
By the way do you know the FEBEA ?
What do you think?

[bernardd]

They know full well that money is our lifeline.

Or rather the net that traps us?

Because contrary to received and propagated ideas, the currency does not favor the exchanges, but prevents the exchanges. The real purpose of money is to prohibit trade when there is no more money.

The problem is that it only works as long as you believe in it: you can perfectly give or exchange when you run out of money, and the example of free software shows this on a large scale.

And I think that is also the real issue behind the official fight against peer-to-peer: if we start trading without money, where do we go? the religious system of money collapses.

This is the real issue of withdrawing money from banks on Tuesday December 7, 2010: undermining the religious myth of money.

[chatelot16]

Because contrary to received and propagated ideas, the currency does not favor the exchanges, but prevents the exchanges. The real purpose of money is to prohibit trade when there is no more money.

try to barter! when you get to live on it you will call me!

when you know how to do something it is already not easy to sell it, but you have to trade it for something useful and not perishable, it becomes impossible, you might as well stay in bed

money is essential for me! the state by not leaving enough money in the circuit is stupid! it decreases all possibility of progress

the duty to beat monaie is indeed the main right of the gorvernement of a country which wants to exist ... with europe we are fucked up

each in their American and Chinese corner operate their ticket boards ... and Europe does not do so and kills us with a strong euro

the printing press is a very good way for a state to make pay a tax to all those who hold this currency even those who are at the other end of the world: when the state takes 100 euro of tax to someone someone who has 100 euro less ... when he prints 100 euro more, the general value of this currency will decrease one day, but everyone will pay the same and especially the traffickers who have a lot of cash!

if the emission of currency is a means of financing the states used in the whole world it is very stupid that europe does not do it

now I have a doubt ... the issuance of money must benefit the states! not to the banks ... if it is the banks that profit from it it is even more serious than I thought

[bernardd]

try to barter! when you get to live on it you will call me!

In bartering or exchanging, there is a notion of symmetry: and that is the difficult thing, the fear of not seeing return "the equivalent" of what one removes.

Donation is easier, because there is no symmetry by definition. And we ask for what we need, no need for more.

You're right, not necessarily easy to live with right now.

But what are you doing here on this beautiful site?

Thank you Christophe, and thank you to all those who made this site possible, by their donations on the internet and on free software.

Besides, asking just what you need is more like the basis of econology, right?

the duty to beat monaie is indeed the main right of the gorvernement of a country which wants to exist ...

I don't think we should confuse nation and government. Monetary power should certainly be as even or more independent than the powers traditionally envisaged (executive, legislative, judicial, etc.) and which are clearly no longer so.

I see more and more the interest of a monetary cooperative, of which each citizen is a member by right, from birth, and which creates money by distributing it among each of its members.

now I have a doubt ... the issuance of money must benefit the states! not to the banks ... if it is the banks that profit from it it is even more serious than I thought

So it's more serious than you thought, I confirm.

When a bank currently grants credit, it does not lend money that exists: it creates it, just like that, by writing. Practical, right?

[FPLM]

Around (pig) Ireland to join the PIGS!
Cost of the joke: 48 billion.

Meanwhile Christine Lagarde continues to say that everything is fine.
It reminds me of the musicians of the titanic who were ordered by the commander to continue playing when people jumped into the water ...

I am more and more nostalgic for the franc ...
For a bit, I would become Gallic again!

Because contrary to received and propagated ideas, the currency does not favor the exchanges, but prevents the exchanges. The real purpose of money is to prohibit trade when there is no more money.

You still darken the picture a bit ...
I would rather say that blocking the lack of liquidity is the flip side. Why not have several complementary trading systems but based on the same value. Why should barter replace money?
The same exchange problem also arises with barter, right?
Having barter as an alternative to money or money as an alternative to barter doubles the possibilities for trade. By perhaps preferring barter in priority ...

I don't think the problem is there. It is simpler than that. In the heyday of the United States (60s), before the arrival of this Reagan clown, wealth tax was 90%!
Have we seen the bosses show their anger? or the collapse of industry and the economic system?
No, because as their great contribution went to the community, by being part of it, they benefited just as much. American society experienced its economic peak at this time.
So, the company was flourished, worked without counting in an adequate field, the state had a lot of liquidity, the export was going well, ... The virtuous spiral in short ... Then capitalism arrived and the racket has begun.
I really think the truth is the one we refuse to believe. An extremely well organized mafia empire.

[chatelot16]

But what are you doing here on this beautiful site?

I share my idea! it's easy and it costs nothing! if i shared my money i wouldn't have any more ... but the more ideas we give the less they are lost

I hope that when I have no more ideas I will have oil ...

more seriously, the ideas the more we talk about it the more we enrich ourselves with the reflections of others

[Obamot]

+1 ... not much to add to all the points discussed, each has summarized their positions fairly well. The proof, I understood

Small flat about China, given the growth they have, I doubt they need to operate the printing press, and it seems to me that their religion (market communism?) Prohibits them from somewhere do it...

Around (pig) Ireland to join the PIGS!
Cost of the joke: 48 billion.

... no they were already there (the "i" of PIGGS) they just increased the pot

The replacement of the currency by the hypotheses suggested see a change of lifestyles, are most interesting!

No doubt, if we try to integrate them they will be very subversive ... And, we saw it in certain circumstances (sharing) they must achieve objectives that are impossible to achieve otherwise.

I think that a company can have the means to create a "supply" of this type if it is well thought out, in parallel with the standard offer sounding and stumbling (even if it would be marginal and exclusively intended for economic actors n ' having no large means to afford the desired goods / services). But obviously, this requires a sense of ethics above all suspicion on the part of managers!

It is also this aspect of things that generally advocates in favor of the currency, because it guarantees relative fairness in trade.

Those who do "sharing" ... to please, can not live with the times! This is why in principle they offer "donations". This system did not work at all in France and in a large part of Europe for cultural questions (and in particular the spirit of free riding ...). On the other hand in the United States, not far from one in two people gives something! They have this sense of community much more developed than here ...

Here we would need a case-by-case or variable geometry formula!

It is much easier in services, where there are no "goods purchases". There it is possibly possible to make an offer of proposals "subject to application" a kind of non-public auction (it is the broadcaster who chooses to whom he distributes according to the purchase offers he has) but this is not is not necessarily "to the highest bidder" ... everything could depend on the context and the status of the applicants ... Rather than their financial strength ...

On the flip side, such an offer in Europe could be very confusing for some "customers", and cast doubt on the credibility of the person offering it ...

[bernardd]

Because contrary to received and propagated ideas, the currency does not favor the exchanges, but prevents the exchanges. The real purpose of money is to prohibit trade when there is no more money.

You still darken the picture a bit ...

The purpose of money is to "symmetrize" exchanges. Which means that I cannot receive without having money: the change is well made to block "receptions" / purchases without money.

It is also the symbol of power: whoever has money can receive everything as he wishes.

He doesn't even need to need what he asks for :-)

And if it was the king who was minting money, it was because it was a means of securing control over his subjects.

Why should barter replace money?

When there is no more money available, not too much choice.

But there is not only an alternative: there is money, barter / exchange and donation.

Exchange implies search for symmetry, ie fear of asymmetry, and shortly the arrival of a currency to keep track.

When you expect nothing in return, which is the definition of the gift, there is no need to check the symmetry, so no need for money.

Then capitalism came and racketeering started.

Did capitalism happen between 1960 and now?

[I Citro]

An example, the distribution of this fortune (the word is really mean in this context):

On this graph you will notice the strong similarity between the French public debt (% of GDP) and the world fortune between 2002 and 2009:

I love this graph.
We see China among the least wealthy countries when it is one, if not the richest on the planet (but not the majority of its inhabitants).
Great, you can indeed say what you want to the figures.

[FPLM]

... no they were already there (the "i" of PIGGS)

As much for me, I thought it was Iceland.

Mouarf, job creation because we would have withdrawn money from the banks? I don't believe it for a second.

A bit later...

The replacement of the currency by the hypotheses suggested see a change of lifestyles, are most interesting!
There is no doubt that, if we try to integrate them, they will be very subversive ... And, as we have seen in certain circumstances (sharing), they must make it possible to achieve objectives impossible to achieve otherwise.

So withdrawing my money from the bank allows me to buy goods (change currency-> goods) that I can then exchange or invest for the common good of my community.
You therefore admit that job creation is an objective that is impossible to achieve otherwise which also becomes accessible through this means.
I'm glad to see that your dreams meet the rigor of your Obamot analytical pragmatism.
Anything is possible for whoever truly wishes it and what the peoples claim is only justice.
For alternatives, go to an ethical bank yes but ...
http://www.triodos.be/fr/la-banque-triodos/actu/communiques-de-presse/peter-blom-directeur-general-fait-son-entree-au-club-de-rome/
In the same way that our national popular (deposit) banks were eaten up one after the other and that we are not safe from falling on a false ethical bank, ...
I prefer to invest (goods, currency, time, ...) directly in a local network (whose activity I can easily check) which acts for the good of the community. The impact and the scale are certainly less, but it suffices to increase the number of these local networks to achieve the same result.
I no longer have any confidence in the regulated circuit, the state exercises control over the community.