An easy explanation of why the Fiat capitalistic system is flawed

[mOgliE]

fiat does not = capitalism

Your title is misleading. Sure sounds like you are promoting socialism by criticizing a flawed banking model not exclusive to capitalism, and then calling it capitalism.

No it's not. You're only misinterpreting it.
My title is refering to fiat capitalistic system, simply because it's the current system and that's the one I'm criticizing. I've got no idea what a fiat socialism/communism/whateverism would do as it doesn't exist.

But you see it as a criticize of capitalism, which is not here.

I don't know what would give me that impression, perhaps it is because it is in the title. As far as no communist/socialist states using fiat, I would be surprised if you could show me any communist/socialist state that doesn't/didn't use fiat currency. Perhaps address the real problem, fiat and fractional reserve lending, and leave your communist/socialist bias out of it.

Give me the example of a socialist or communist country with fiat!
The only country which is really communist/socialist is Cuba. And they don't use fiat. Well at least they didn't.

No no no, no more of that tu quoque logical fallacy bullshit from you.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

YOU made a claim, and I posed a challenge to YOU to prove it. You don't get to just turn the question around on me and tell me to prove it for you because you are too ignorant and lazy. Now try again comrade.

Which I did. It's not because you're too lazy to read my answer that it doesn't exist ^^
Cuba: no fiat. USSR: no fiat.
You asked examples of communist countries without fiat, I gave them. Is it my fault if you can't read it?

[mOgliE]

OK I m not exactly a fan of capitalism but here is a demonstration not against the capitalism in itself but more the fiat/bank aspect. I m not promoting socialism here ^^

Capitalism is an economic paradigm that allows for private ownership of resources, businesses, means of production and any other facet of the economy. Any individual person has an opportunity to thrive under such a system. The USA is the only "success story" in human history, and competitive free market capitalism is what enabled it to have continued success.

I could heavily discuss such statement. I see no "success story" in the USA, rather the contrary. It's probably the saddest and most unfortunate story of our time. But the main point of my remark was to explain this thread is not about discussing capitalism, so I won't go further. Want to discuss the benefits of capitalism? Open a new thread.

It's a very simple explanation but that doesn't mean it's not perfectly true ^^
Two things get us in the shit:
First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis. You'll tell me, it's rather logical because the amount of wealth in the world always increase so the amount of money has to increase too. Fine.

Monetary policy has nothing to do with capitalism. The government, not private individuals or entities, regulate the currency supply. There is a legitimate need to add or remove currency to maintain price stability as the population grows. Let's say the USA only made 100 million dollars available. We now have over 300 million people living here. Do you see a problem with that? Inflation would be rampant and the currency value would be volatile.

As populations grow, demand for resources grow. This creates the demand on commodities, which are then supplied by companies of industry. A stable currency is required for a smooth-running economy.

It's exactly what I said...

But the second problem is that money is printed by government (or an institution depending on the government,depends of the country) and given out to the banks, and it's banks jobs to spread the money. Problem is: how do they do that? By giving out loans.

Not quite - you could get a job and earn money, use the money you earned to start a business and further increase your wealth. This thing called work coupled with an ability to provide a product or service of value to other people does not require a loan.

Fine, and where the money of your job comes from? Let's say a company. The company gets money through customer who gets money through jobs etc... But at the end of the day, there is someone somewhere who borrowed the money to a bank. That's my point.

And they do that since the beginning, it means banks earn interests on absolutely every penny on earth! Which means you gotta print more money to pay them,money printed by government and then... loaned by the banks!

Banks are private entities, although they are highly integrated with the government and therefore partially socialized, hence the problems they introduce into society. You cannot really create your own bank as you would be required to comply with endless pages of regulatory crap designed to essentially make it illegal for truly private banks to spring up.

During the obama bailouts of 2008-2009, many small, independent, responsible banks that did not slice up and sell bad mortgage debt were forced to accept bail-out money even though they didn't want or need it. The reason for this was to get them under the thumb of the federal government, in addition to creating the false narrative that the dodd-frank bill (aka the economy killer) was necessary to prevent a similar crash from happening again.

It seems just a closed system where banks get everything in the end. Basically, with fiat, we're screwed.

I don't think you really understand how the traditional banking system works or why it has problems. Most of the problems that exist with regard to banking and finance are onerous government regulations that stifle competition and block new ideas from ever gaining ground. Things like the SEC exist to protect the financial industry, not to protect citizens from unscrupulous lenders (we already have laws for theft and fraud).

I don't think you understand my point though...

I'll try to simplify it so you can understand it.
Banks inject money into the society. How? By giving out loans. That's the only way it is done. Which means they earn interest on anything... That's all I'm saying. That's where the problem is...

[countryfree]

First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis.

It used to be a closed system. It remained closed for centuries. There was a time, less than half a century ago, when you could exchange US$ for gold. Those were the good old days, where paper was backed by something real, long-lasting and shiny. Some politicians from the far-right regularly ask for a return to that convertibility.

[BTC-Joe]

I could heavily discuss such statement. I see no "success story" in the USA, rather the contrary. It's probably the saddest and most unfortunate story of our time. But the main point of my remark was to explain this thread is not about discussing capitalism, so I won't go further. Want to discuss the benefits of capitalism? Open a new thread.

You're claiming that there is something better than capitalism and there's not. That's the point. The USA simply proves that true capitalism works for everyone, there is nothing sad or unfortunate about that. What is a problem are all the leftists trying to undermine the USA for their own gain...which is another topic.

It's exactly what I said...

You said as "wealth" grows, which implies that everyone with money naturally gets richer with the passage of time and that is not the case. Money must be added as the population grows to minimize price volatility. Has nothing to do with wealth accumulation.

Fine, and where the money of your job comes from? Let's say a company. The company gets money through customer who gets money through jobs etc... But at the end of the day, there is someone somewhere who borrowed the money to a bank. That's my point.

You can start a business yourself, and hire employees as you are able to afford them. Banks came into existence as a means for people to save (store) their money, not as a source of new money. Besides, if you do the math:

$100,000 loan @ 12% Interest = -$112,000  @ Loan Maturity

That is $12,000 leaving the economy and heading back to the bank, so even if another loan is made by a bank it always results in money being removed not added.

What you are describing is a corrupt political system that uses banks to siphon wealth away from citizens as a type of stealth tax - and that is not the proper role of banks in society. That's what happens when people who should be in jail are instead elected to political office.

It seems just a closed system where banks get everything in the end. Basically, with fiat, we're screwed.

That's only the case when citizens cede too much authority over the economy to the government, i.e. socialism or communism. Once economic liberty is quashed, everything else follows. People buy into the false notion that allowing more regulation to happen will make the economy "safe and fair". Well, it won't. Peoples' sense of fairness is distorted when they begin thinking that they are entitled to have the kind of success that only some people realize.

Having equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.

I don't think you understand my point though...

I'll try to simplify it so you can understand it.
Banks inject money into the society. How? By giving out loans. That's the only way it is done. Which means they earn interest on anything... That's all I'm saying. That's where the problem is...

But the problem isn't the banks themselves; it's the politicians creating regulation and policy that control how the banks interact with citizens. Maybe you support socialism and therefore are unwilling to admit that big, all-powerful governments are the root of all human social problems...but that is the simple truth.

[BADecker]

First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis.

It used to be a closed system. It remained closed for centuries. There was a time, less than half a century ago, when you could exchange US$ for gold. Those were the good old days, where paper was backed by something real, long-lasting and shiny. Some politicians from the far-right regularly ask for a return to that convertibility.

You need to remember. Paper is still backed by stuff. If you have enough paper, you can trade it in for just about anything that exists. Try it sometime. You might even be able to trade some paper in for a Burger King Whopper and fries.

[mOgliE]

I could heavily discuss such statement. I see no "success story" in the USA, rather the contrary. It's probably the saddest and most unfortunate story of our time. But the main point of my remark was to explain this thread is not about discussing capitalism, so I won't go further. Want to discuss the benefits of capitalism? Open a new thread.

You're claiming that there is something better than capitalism and there's not. That's the point. The USA simply proves that true capitalism works for everyone, there is nothing sad or unfortunate about that. What is a problem are all the leftists trying to undermine the USA for their own gain...which is another topic.

Capitalism works for everyone?
I think this link is enough to prove how wrong and biased you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

It's exactly what I said...

You said as "wealth" grows, which implies that everyone with money naturally gets richer with the passage of time and that is not the case. Money must be added as the population grows to minimize price volatility. Has nothing to do with wealth accumulation.

Wealth grows as population grow and technological progress grows. I was talking about the global wealth concerned by the currency, not about the wealth of one perticuliar citizen.

Fine, and where the money of your job comes from? Let's say a company. The company gets money through customer who gets money through jobs etc... But at the end of the day, there is someone somewhere who borrowed the money to a bank. That's my point.

You can start a business yourself, and hire employees as you are able to afford them. Banks came into existence as a means for people to save (store) their money, not as a source of new money.

And this money will come from banks and banks will earn interest on it!

Besides, if you do the math:

$100,000 loan @ 12% Interest = -$112,000  @ Loan Maturity

That is $12,000 leaving the economy and heading back to the bank, so even if another loan is made by a bank it always results in money being removed not added.

That's here that you're making a mistake.
Don't consider one loan. Consider the whole amount of money. Banks earn interest on every penny. It means the world is endebted to them of more than the total amount of money. Which means there is NO OTHER SOLUTION than to create money simply in order to repay the interests to the banks...

What you are describing is a corrupt political system that uses banks to siphon wealth away from citizens as a type of stealth tax - and that is not the proper role of banks in society. That's what happens when people who should be in jail are instead elected to political office.

Nope, again as I said it is mathematically impossible to get rid of the necessity of creating money simply to pay back the banks. THough without a fucking corrupted government we could greatly reduce the gap to the point that it doesn't really matter I agree on that!

It seems just a closed system where banks get everything in the end. Basically, with fiat, we're screwed.

That's only the case when citizens cede too much authority over the economy to the government, i.e. socialism or communism. Once economic liberty is quashed, everything else follows. People buy into the false notion that allowing more regulation to happen will make the economy "safe and fair". Well, it won't. Peoples' sense of fairness is distorted when they begin thinking that they are entitled to have the kind of success that only some people realize.

Having equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.

I don't think you understand my point though...

I'll try to simplify it so you can understand it.
Banks inject money into the society. How? By giving out loans. That's the only way it is done. Which means they earn interest on anything... That's all I'm saying. That's where the problem is...

But the problem isn't the banks themselves; it's the politicians creating regulation and policy that control how the banks interact with citizens. Maybe you support socialism and therefore are unwilling to admit that big, all-powerful governments are the root of all human social problems...but that is the simple truth.

Only a blind man would say that governments as they are now aren't the root of 90% of our problems. 100% of them are coming from gov, banks and companies associations. Being a socialist doesn't mean not understanding this, socialism and communism ARE NOT linked to governments contrary to what every capitalist believes.

But you're placing far too much faith in an "open economy". It won't change this simple facts:
Money is created
Money is distributed by the banks ONLY
Banks earn interest on the money distributed
More money needs to be created to pay for the interests the world owe the banks.


This is the base of tha banking system. With or without a government or regulation. Imagine we get rid of every single regulation and government, what will it change about the banking system?

[TECSHARE]

fiat does not = capitalism

Your title is misleading. Sure sounds like you are promoting socialism by criticizing a flawed banking model not exclusive to capitalism, and then calling it capitalism.

No it's not. You're only misinterpreting it.
My title is refering to fiat capitalistic system, simply because it's the current system and that's the one I'm criticizing. I've got no idea what a fiat socialism/communism/whateverism would do as it doesn't exist.

But you see it as a criticize of capitalism, which is not here.

I don't know what would give me that impression, perhaps it is because it is in the title. As far as no communist/socialist states using fiat, I would be surprised if you could show me any communist/socialist state that doesn't/didn't use fiat currency. Perhaps address the real problem, fiat and fractional reserve lending, and leave your communist/socialist bias out of it.

Give me the example of a socialist or communist country with fiat!
The only country which is really communist/socialist is Cuba. And they don't use fiat. Well at least they didn't.

No no no, no more of that tu quoque logical fallacy bullshit from you.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

YOU made a claim, and I posed a challenge to YOU to prove it. You don't get to just turn the question around on me and tell me to prove it for you because you are too ignorant and lazy. Now try again comrade.

Which I did. It's not because you're too lazy to read my answer that it doesn't exist ^^
Cuba: no fiat. USSR: no fiat.
You asked examples of communist countries without fiat, I gave them. Is it my fault if you can't read it?

No I read your answer, and it was nothing more than a claim by you with not a scrap of evidence to back it up. Furthermore you never even mentioned the USSR until this latest post (both Cuba and the USSR had a very long history of using fiat BTW, not that you bothered to look).

[Jasad]

OK I m not exactly a fan of capitalism but here is a demonstration not against the capitalism in itself but more the fiat/bank aspect. I m not promoting socialism here ^^
Just awareness on how screwed we are.

It's a very simple explanation but that doesn't mean it's not perfectly true ^^
Two things get us in the shit:
First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis. You'll tell me, it's rather logical because the amount of wealth in the world always increase so the amount of money has to increase too. Fine.
But the second problem is that money is printed by government (or an institution depending on the government,depends of the country) and given out to the banks, and it's banks jobs to spread the money. Problem is: how do they do that? By giving out loans.
And they do that since the beginning, it means banks earn interests on absolutely every penny on earth! Which means you gotta print more money to pay them,money printed by government and then... loaned by the banks!

It seems just a closed system where banks get everything in the end. Basically, with fiat, we're screwed.

agree with that,and its an simple explanation,i get it,but i think not nowif bank want to get everything,they should thinking about more technology that can bring banks more confident.

[countryfree]

First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis.

It used to be a closed system. It remained closed for centuries. There was a time, less than half a century ago, when you could exchange US$ for gold. Those were the good old days, where paper was backed by something real, long-lasting and shiny. Some politicians from the far-right regularly ask for a return to that convertibility.

You need to remember. Paper is still backed by stuff. If you have enough paper, you can trade it in for just about anything that exists. Try it sometime. You might even be able to trade some paper in for a Burger King Whopper and fries.

You have no idea of what I'm talking about. Paper money isn't backed by anything nowadays. You see the price of a burger varying between small towns and big cities. You see the price of gold going and up and down. Between 1945 and 1975, it didn't.
It was fixed by law. An ounce of gold was $35 and it remained at that price between 1945 and 1971, because that was the law. Gold was backing the $.

That was the Bretton Woods system, and it's gone. Probably forever.

[BADecker]

First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis.

It used to be a closed system. It remained closed for centuries. There was a time, less than half a century ago, when you could exchange US$ for gold. Those were the good old days, where paper was backed by something real, long-lasting and shiny. Some politicians from the far-right regularly ask for a return to that convertibility.

You need to remember. Paper is still backed by stuff. If you have enough paper, you can trade it in for just about anything that exists. Try it sometime. You might even be able to trade some paper in for a Burger King Whopper and fries.

You have no idea of what I'm talking about. Paper money isn't backed by anything nowadays. You see the price of a burger varying between small towns and big cities. You see the price of gold going and up and down. Between 1945 and 1975, it didn't.
It was fixed by law. An ounce of gold was $35 and it remained at that price between 1945 and 1971, because that was the law. Gold was backing the $.

That was the Bretton Woods system, and it's gone. Probably forever.

The problem with fixed backing is the population. Since there is only so much gold, if we hadn't gotten off the gold standard, you and I would only have a couple of dollars to our name, because that's all the gold there is to back it.

[nihilnegativum]

Money supply itself is seldom an issue, you can issue smaller denomination bills etc. the real issue was the risk of transport and the lack of regulative power as it is inflexible in regard to monetary policies and interest rates (they go up in relation to gold scarcity, not in the relation to the economy). All economists agree there is no return on the gold standard, because the inflexibility of interest rates make recessions worse. I don't think the stability of currencies is the immediate cause of deeper recessions, but that it was a particular case of it, the reason for recessions is the difference in ratio between economic agents and the population in a system where all value distribution is organized by economic activity. This reason can be caused by many factors, for example by hoardin, in a time of distrust in monetary policies there are less economic agents because people hoard value instead of investing (it doesn't really matter if its in currency or in something else), by population ageing and most importantly technological advancement that reduces required labour and creates a lesser demand for new types of more specific labour. Fiat can't provide a solution for all this scenarios, because its not an economic, but a political issue, the problem that can only be solved by non-economic distribution of value, like universal basic income.

[countryfree]

First, fiat system isn't a closed one. It means money is added in the system on a regular basis.

It used to be a closed system. It remained closed for centuries. There was a time, less than half a century ago, when you could exchange US$ for gold. Those were the good old days, where paper was backed by something real, long-lasting and shiny. Some politicians from the far-right regularly ask for a return to that convertibility.

You need to remember. Paper is still backed by stuff. If you have enough paper, you can trade it in for just about anything that exists. Try it sometime. You might even be able to trade some paper in for a Burger King Whopper and fries.

You have no idea of what I'm talking about. Paper money isn't backed by anything nowadays. You see the price of a burger varying between small towns and big cities. You see the price of gold going and up and down. Between 1945 and 1975, it didn't.
It was fixed by law. An ounce of gold was $35 and it remained at that price between 1945 and 1971, because that was the law. Gold was backing the $.

That was the Bretton Woods system, and it's gone. Probably forever.

The problem with fixed backing is the population. Since there is only so much gold, if we hadn't gotten off the gold standard, you and I would only have a couple of dollars to our name, because that's all the gold there is to back it.

Yes. Quite realistic. The average worker would make only $50 a month, but everything would be cheaper, there would be no budget deficit, no debt and money would be worth something. I could enjoy living in a world like this, and this is the road BTC's taking. I'm all for it.

[Geremia]

This is taken from "Zippy Catholic"'s "Frequently Asked Questions on the Subject of Usury" #7:

Imagine that Bob lends Harry $100, Harry lends Fred $100, and Fred lends Bob $100. They each spend the money on beer, and charge 10% interest in the form of a deferred fee. The contracts attempt to entitle each of them to an additional $10 – for a total of $30. This $30 worth of new financial entitlements on the books is not connected to anything ontologically real. The 2008 financial crisis was the result of a usurious network of real estate loans and ultimately circular insurance-like schemes which created this kind of ‘fake’ wealth.  All usurious lending involves the creation of fake wealth.

This is why Bp. Nicole Oresme argued that wide-scale tampering with money's value is worse than usury (usury is selling what doesn't exist, as St. Thomas Aquinas famously and correctly defined it):

The usurer has lent his money to one who takes it of his own free will, and can then enjoy the use of it and relieve his own necessity with it, and what he repays in excess of the principal is determined by free contract between the parties. But a prince, by unnecessary change in the coinage, plainly takes the money of his subjects against their will, because he forbids the older money to pass current, though it is better, and anyone would prefer it to the bad; and then unnecessarily and without any possible advantage to his subjects, he will give them back worse money. . . . In so far then as he receives more money than he gives, against and beyond the natural use of money, such gain is equivalent to usury; but is worse than usury because it is less voluntary and more against the will of his subjects, incapable of profiting them, and utterly unnecessary. And since the usurer’s interest is not so excessive, or so generally injurious to the many, as this impost, levied tyrannically and fraudulently, against the interest and against the will of the whole community, I doubt whether it should not rather be termed robbery with violence or fraudulent extortion.

Capitalism = Usury-ism.

[TECSHARE]

Capitalism can exist without usury. They are not one in the same.

[garmerys]

Bankers and government both like the FIAT and not bitcoins

[BTC-Joe]

Capitalism works for everyone?
I think this link is enough to prove how wrong and biased you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The only thing you've proven by linking to wikipedia is that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Capitalism WORKS for everyone, note the word WORKS. There's a growing subset of the population that doesn't want to work yet expects to taken care of. They have access to the same opportunities as any American citizen does, and the history of the USA is full of rags-to-riches stories where someone who started poor managed to make it to the top.

Poverty in the USA is nothing compared to the strife 99% of the people experience under a communist/socialist regime. Visited cuba lately?

Wealth grows as population grow and technological progress grows. I was talking about the global wealth concerned by the currency, not about the wealth of one perticuliar citizen.

Currency has "value" not "wealth". Wealth is a term to quantify the relative value of an individual or entity in terms of currency, i.e. Bob is worth $1 million or SomeCompany is a $10 billion company. Technology may aid in allowing more people to attain wealth, but technology itself is not required for people or businesses to gain wealth.

That's here that you're making a mistake.
Don't consider one loan. Consider the whole amount of money. Banks earn interest on every penny. It means the world is endebted to them of more than the total amount of money. Which means there is NO OTHER SOLUTION than to create money simply in order to repay the interests to the banks...

That money is taxed, as are citizens and businesses. Most of the money that banks lend is money borrowed from the US government, and so banks are essentially paying interest on that money. Currently in the US and other countries the central banks are undermining the economy with their "zero interest  rate policies" (ZIRP), which has only caused massive equity (i.e. stocks) inflation.

If you want to say that central banks are a problem, then I'd agree with you. I also consider QE (quantitative easing) to be highly problematic and a terrible practice. QE is often referred to as "printing money" but in reality it is done to create the illusion of a 'healthy' economy by flooding it with cheap money via bond buy-backs. QE coupled with ZIRP is an economy killer, both the USA, EU and Japan are muddled in this due to the leftist morons that have been running the show for far too long.

Only a blind man would say that governments as they are now aren't the root of 90% of our problems. 100% of them are coming from gov, banks and companies associations. Being a socialist doesn't mean not understanding this, socialism and communism ARE NOT linked to governments contrary to what every capitalist believes.

There is very little difference between socialism and communism in practice; the primary difference is that communism is a forceful, usually violent, takeover (Vietnam) while socialists are elected (Nazis). They are indeed a system of government that holds onto power by ensuring that economic liberty never happens.

When economic liberty is eliminated, you basically have control of the people and they go from being citizens to being subjects. Socialism can exist in a capitalist society when citizens allow their government to reach too far, as is the case in the USA with certain industries. In this case it's called cronyism - where a wealthy person or company pays politicians for "favorable regulation" that enhances their business at the expense of taxpayers and/or competing business. Cronyism is not "crony capitalism"; cronyism is its own thing just like fraud and theft are their own things.

By contrast to a socialist/communist regime, capitalism is not a form of government, it's an economic premise that allows for private ownership of resources, capital, means of production and such.

But you're placing far too much faith in an "open economy". It won't change this simple facts:
Money is created
Money is distributed by the banks ONLY
Banks earn interest on the money distributed
More money needs to be created to pay for the interests the world owe the banks.

You can buy bonds, which would essentially make you the bank. As a bond buyer, you would be making a loan to whoever is selling the bond according to the terms of the contract. It's the same as you buying a promissory note.

What banks can do today is not the same as it has always been. After the great depression, a law was passed that prevented bank from making risky investments, i.e. derivatives. This law was repealed by Bill Clinton in the 90s under the guise of making it easier for poor people to get mortgages to buy homes. In reality, all it did was unleash a torrent of financial irresponsibility and fraud by bankers.

Point there is that laws limit what banks can and cannot do. Should banks be doing anything more than making relatively safe loans? Probably not...but again, banks pay both taxes and interest on the money they lend. When borrowed money is used to pay employees, it is taxed as income. When the employee buys something, they are taxed on the purchase.

This is the base of tha banking system. With or without a government or regulation. Imagine we get rid of every single regulation and government, what will it change about the banking system?

We don't need regulations; we just need a relative few common-sense laws, and that's what the USA started with. Regulations are a problem because they bypass our constitutional legislative process entirely; they're almost exclusively used as a vehicle for cronyism.

a) Without a government you would not have the rule of law.
b) Without the rule of law you could not have contracts.
c) Without contracts you could not have a notes.
d) Without a note you would not have currency.

Banks require a legal framework within which to operate.

[Geremia]

Capitalism can exist without usury. They are not one in the same.

Capitalism ≠ any free-market economy. Capitalism holds that money is capital and thus is per se a productive good. Usury is the failed attempt to make money, something sterile, (re)productive. It's the insane idea that coins can copulate with other coins to produce more coins and more wealth/value. No; people, the workforce, and goods like natural resources are productive, not money.