Boost growth by penalizing savings?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Boost growth by penalizing savings?




by Christophe » 04/10/08, 19:49

Copied / pasted from another topic: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post98948.html#98948 because I think it's quite important, here are 2 completely different visions on savings and growth!

Which is the right one?

Christophe wrote:
Remundo wrote:Without wear, everyone keeps his capital because he has no interest to lend it ... And the borrowers are muzzled for their projects. The whole system freezes: the money loses its value, the facilities are degraded, the recession peaks and the bartering is not far ...


Well no I see the thing reversed! If money stuck in the bank does not pay anything so much to spend it no?

Without the abusive wear as now: more money stuck on bank accounts that yields peasants to its holders (5% per year, which is huge for most of us, in finance is a bunny that can be done in 2 days without problems), a lot more money would be in circulation, so a lot more GDP (GDP = trade trading) so more GROWTH ...

Is not it finally one of the solutions to boost growth: penalize savings!
0 x
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 04/10/08, 20:14

Your solution Christophe has been partly tried by previous governments, which have lowered the interest of booklets A, codevi ...

The result was not up to their expectations, as long as the saver remains with the anxiety of his financial future, he remains a squirrel.

On the one hand, the advantage of a France which saves to its advantage leaves compared to the Americans who live on credit, in any case it is the analysis that some specialists are doing at the moment.
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187




by Remundo » 04/10/08, 20:29

Ah well nice this little economic debate 8)

This is my opinion ...

I do not follow Christophe's reasoning well: if the money is no longer remunerated, there is no longer any advantage in lending it. So everyone will keep it for their personal investment, which in general is very low. The money is no longer shared and is no longer available to major companies that can carry out important projects, or even just for individuals.

This pooling of money to finance major projects is only done through the iprofit sharing owners of capital ...

For supporters of interest-free loans, nothing prevents them from setting up a loan-free association ... There are not many candidates ...

Interest drives the economy, because:
- on the one hand, it stimulates the holder of capital
- and secondly, it supports investment (individuals and companies)

Thus, the interest rate must be low enough not to strangle the borrowers, but high enough to satisfy the lender.

This is why adjusting the interest rate is a crucial point in modern economies. : excluding runaway inflation, the right compromise is around 4%, which works for the creditor and borrower. This is what (among other things ... you shouldn't have crazy taxes ...) that is stimulating growth.
0 x
Image
User avatar
swift2540
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 383
Registration: 04/08/08, 00:48
Location: Liege
x 1




by swift2540 » 04/10/08, 22:53

Hi,

Personally, I think it is impossible to practice zero rate.

Nowadays, bartering is unthinkable; suppose Christophe, that I send you 2 steaks by post on Friday to buy a bulb, at best you receive them on Monday ... hello the state of freshness!

Likewise, money will inevitably be put back into something profitable, for example real estate or raw materials, automatically and artificially increasing their intrinsic value; we would create a speculative bubble without wanting to, but very real.

Rethinking the profession of banker seems more reasonable to me. Take a parallel with a notary. It has a given function with a given scale, and in the case of home buying / selling a declining price according to transaction price, all with a real advisory function.

We could therefore start on an identical basis to scale up the bankers, and prohibit them (to them but also to stockholders in general) all purely speculative financial products of the warrant, options, short purchase, etc. types.

For the small saver, the interest rate (eg 4%) also allows a long-term view of his life; I save for my house, pension savings, etc ...
0 x
User avatar
swift2540
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 383
Registration: 04/08/08, 00:48
Location: Liege
x 1




by swift2540 » 04/10/08, 23:00

Another thing to review is state funding.
As a citizen, as much I find normal to pay for services like school, hospital, fire department, roads and so on, as much I find totally abnormal that a substantial part of my taxes are used to repay a loan.
As Remundo says, without credit, no infrastructure, let's not forget, for example, the natural disasters to which the state must respond immediately.
But from there to have to be ransom by the banking system, there is margin !!!
So big reform of this system also
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/10/08, 23:06

Remundo wrote:if the money is no longer remunerated, there is no longer any advantage in lending it


But who's talking to you about lending? I'm talking to you about consuming more and saving less ... The reserve guarantee of 9 to 1 banks can be pushed much higher when they decide and think that the situation justifies it ...so your saver (= all of us?) is just a despicable pawn of their system!

Remundo wrote:The money is no longer shared and is no longer available to major companies that can carry out important projects, or even just for individuals.


Uh "mutualized" and available to large-scale companies (= big boxes that don't give a damn about social matters) wouldn't that be a paradoxical "hair"? A large business does not need banks if it is managed soundly !!

Mutualization means available to all "mutualizers", right?

Remundo wrote:This mutualistion of the money to finance the important projects is only done by theprofit owners of capital ...


The important projects it would not be in the STATES to manage them and at RATE ZERO simply (by simply balancing the budget)?

Remundo wrote:For supporters of interest-free loans, nothing prevents them from setting up a loan-free association ... There are not many candidates ...


Not bad idea: do it and I bet you that in the months that follow you have a lawsuit at the bottom of the bankers for ... unfair competition!

Remundo wrote:Thus, the interest rate must be low enough not to strangle the borrowers, but high enough to satisfy the lender


Did you see this: https://www.econologie.com/l-escroquerie ... -3920.html ?

Remundo wrote:This is why adjusting the interest rate is a crucial point in modern economies. : excluding runaway inflation, the right compromise is around 4%, which works for the creditor and borrower. This is what (among other things ... you shouldn't have crazy taxes ...) that is stimulating growth.


4% for credits ... ok what does that mean for savers? 2%? 3%?

What if we dared to put 0% for savers and 1% for loans? Do not you think that it would "consume better", the only losers would be the banks ... and then, do we owe them something ??
Last edited by Christophe the 04 / 10 / 08, 23: 15, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187




by Remundo » 04/10/08, 23:08

Hi Swift, I agree with your point of view on barter and the restriction of banking activities to healthy activities, namely the management of deposits and the creative loan of material goods or useful services.

I wrote this on the other subject "who makes the money, Debt?":

Remundo wrote:Bartering is a rigid economy and much more lawless than it seems: money does not circulate there and things are priceless, on the contrary the circulation of money gives a price to things while creating wealth through the wear mechanism.

I believe that another serious mistake is to confuse the fundamentals of the banking system, namely lending and deposit management, with all the drifts of the banking system, as:
- the loan to people who are knowingly insolvent, guaranteed by speculation on the real estate (to prevent the resale price of the house + the incomplete payments from the borrower): it's called subprimes : Idea:
- the casino stock market: banks build products like warrants that bet on the rise or fall of a value
- outrageous insurance and reinsurance activities, designed to suck money from the saver without creating any wealth

These are roughly the 3 activities which either siphon the equity of banks or divert people from the real creation of wealth, namely the production of goods and services.

Once this stock market / dupe loan mentality is well established, credit crashes and the recession comes its nose. By the way, some verreux are enriched and laugh at the credulity of their customers.

I repeat, let the banks do their job and nothing but their job: receive deposits and grant credits reasonable.

By the way, at the same time, the entire industry and agriculture must be reoriented towards renewable energy. Because usury has a flaw: the payment of interest requires the exploitation of additional wealth that must be taken from the natural environment. We are clearly going towards crach if we limit ourselves to the exploitation of fossil resources (see my recent addition from October 5


@+
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/10/08, 23:13

swift2540 wrote:As a citizen, as much I find normal to pay for services like school, hospital, fire department, roads and so on, as much I find totally abnormal that a substantial part of my taxes are used to repay a loan.


Toutafé agree and that joins my previous answer:

The important projects it would not be in the STATES to manage them and at RATE ZERO simply (by simply balancing the budget)?
0 x
User avatar
swift2540
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 383
Registration: 04/08/08, 00:48
Location: Liege
x 1




by swift2540 » 04/10/08, 23:29

Yes Remundo,
I read the other subject and watched the film; very interesting by the way.
Hadn't seen the latest "twists", sorry.
Reasoning and shared opinion

Toutafé Christophe,
for everything related to the PUBLIC domain

But let's take a case:
Suppose (what I wish) that the Laigret project succeeds
We will have to consider industrial production. How to finance it? The state? The already rich who will be the only ones to own a factory?
Another question: In a project like the Pantone or the Sterling engine, do you really think that the state will serve OUR interests?

So for the private sector, only financing is possible, and as said Remundo without interest no one will lend you (except family for example)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79114
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 05/10/08, 00:07

swift2540 wrote:We will have to consider industrial production. How to finance it? The state? The already rich who will be the only ones to own a factory?


There's industrial and industrial ... you don't necessarily need BILLIONS to do industrial!

Laigret's principle does not need HUGE investments for localized production and consumption (no need to fight oil wars!) ... so pkoi It would not be the municipalities, departments or regions which would invest via their "classic" operating budget ???

They are already doing it well for high schools, sewage treatment plants, roads ... etc etc ... full investments that can be described as "deadweight loss" from an accounting point of view!!! While making energy production stations (whatever the technology chosen), there is a real key benefit (but which no longer falls into the pocket of oil tankers !!)

The only ones that will (strongly) annoy it will be the oil companies ... The State will not be at all losing since it will receive the same taxes ...

swift2540 wrote:Another question: In a project like the Pantone or the Sterling engine, do you really think that the state will serve OUR interests?


Sterling apart from the pound I don't know ... stirling, on the other hand, that tells me something : Mrgreen:

The state serves the interests of those who control it and keep it in place, as it has for millennia!... For the moment the "kings" are the oil companies (gas), EdF, pharma labs ... and banks ...

swift2540 wrote:So for the private sector, only financing is possible, and as said Remundo without interest no one will lend you (except family for example)


Pkoi go through an intermediary (the bank) when you could invest with a much higher% gain ... via an association for example?
0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 130 guests