There is a book called "Life after growth, and why 200 years of growth are over" by Tim Morgan, he was involved in the oil boom as a analyst. Very clever chap, and highlights that when the industrial revolution took off, instead of 12 people having to work to feed 12 people, now 10 people could work to feed 12 people. 2 people were now "spare" to think up more efficient ways of doing things. Money represents a debt on future energy. The financial economy is a shadow of the energy economy. As long as they remain in step, and making energy was cheap, the debts could be honoured. However, as the energy dries up, it cost more to get the oil and therefore the ratios go out of step. They are now so out of step, the financial economy could never pay back the debts it owes.

The wealth we perceive is an illusion because it cannot be repaid. Just look at Cyprus in 2008 when everyone panicked, ran to the banks and tried to draw their money out the bank. They closed the banks, then wiped out everyone bank accounts. They actually emptied everyone's bank accounts. Now, we say, that couldn't happen here, that's just Cyprus! Wrong. If people get wise to it, and start drawing out on mass, the banks will be closed and the money will be taken. Because there is no alternative, the money doesn't exist to repay everyone. So the entire system is balancing on a knife edge, held upright by confidence. As long as everyone has confidence in the system, they wont draw on mass and we should be able to kick the can down the road a bit more, and hopefully, it will be someone else's problem in the next generations!

By the way, whilst everyone is focused on the old corona virus, did anyone notice America are in financial meltdown and printing money at rates of 2 trillion? Imagine you tried to run your car on nitrous oxide all the time - flat out! That's what they are doing there by creating money from thin air, then pumping it into the economy to avoid a collapse. It doesn't avoid a collapse, it just makes it bigger and harder when it hits.

Tim's solution is a responsible one, he recommends instead of printing more money and making the problem even worse for future generations, we should "grasp the nettle" now, and destroy billions (trillions now) of inflated, fairytale money to get the two systems back in sync. Of course, the rich are not too keen on this, the truth is, it's the only solution. That, or start a massive war and hope they can kill off hundreds of millions of people and therefore the wealth will be destroyed by destroying the depositors instead.

The only reason I see for you to produce more than what you eat is either because someone outside your tribe need this and is unable to acquire it on time on itself, or because you found another individual like yourself that has at the very least another kind of food or shelter (and you engage in trade). — Zehir

Food and shelter are not the only things you can trade. What about tools. Or shiny things?

They are now so out of step, the financial economy could never pay back the debts it owes. — Antidote

Why are we assuming debts must be repayed, or repayable?

The wealth we perceive is an illusion because it cannot be repaid. — Antidote

So my car, my TV and this computer are all illusions?

That, or start a massive war and hope they can kill off hundreds of millions of people and therefore the wealth will be destroyed by destroying the depositors instead. — Antidote

How would that work, exactly?

Of course. Food and shelter is not the only thing to trade. This is why this example takes place in early humanity, where few other necessities existed at the time.
Remember that many of our needs are invented as we go along.
In my example, the technology in had is very limited to the needs.

This is exactly my point.
Our view on wealth and how it is accumulated might be a little distorted. One thing it remains is that wealth goes in hand with prestige.
Perhaps because prestige is the primary source of wealth?

Why are we assuming debts must be repayed, or repayable? — Echarmion

Because the piece of paper we call "money" is an I.O.U. Otherwise, it would be rather meaningless. It is a debt on future energy/profit what have you. Would you be happy walking into your bank and asking for your money, and they say, no sir, we have already paid out enough today thank you. Come back another day.

So my car, my TV and this computer are all illusions? — Echarmion

None of the items are wealth. The illusion is that if 5 people each have a ticket that says they are owed £1000, but there's only £2000 available, £3000 is an illusion in that it doesn't exist (times this by a billion). The items are all consumables items, continually devaluing to nothing. It would be hard to even call them assets, because they do not increase in value year on year.

How would that work, exactly? — Echarmion

This was a poor attempt at humor. Hopefully it wont work and therefore never happen. However, history tells us (taking Germany in the 1930s) that when you have nothing to lose, because their economy was so bad after WW1, war is a big boost to the economy.

Food and shelter are not the only things you can trade. What about tools. Or shiny things? — Echarmion

If you want to understand this better, read Plato - Republic, book 2. It describes exactly what is needed for trading and you we see very quickly, this is how we are set up now, and that globally we are like a massive city, but without any regulation on how much to produce of what (i.e. we no longer produce based on demand, instead we produce, then find a way to sell it).

Perhaps because prestige is the primary source of wealth? — Zehir

Is there no prestige without wealth? Is prestige just "what you think other people think about you". For instance, does prestige have a place on a desert island on your own? Does it have a place in anything other than a group of 3 or more people? I'm not sure I follow this, so I will also define what I understand wealth to be.

Wealth is having "more than you need". Wealth can only appear if you have gained more than you put in. In terms of the super rich, they deem wealth in terms of how many generations hold on to that wealth. As the system is finite (or would be without QE), if I have more than I need, then someone else in the system has less than they need. Therefore my wealth could be seen as taking from those who need it more than you. What happens to the wealth you have? It sits in an investment vehicle, or a bank or whatever and is not in circulation, it become stagnate. Why not give your wealth to the poor?

Here's a thought, why would you think wealth which has a negative effect on others and the system it's self, would create prestige? That is a super clever trick of the system to create the desire of "want".

Is there no prestige without wealth? Is prestige just "what you think other people think about you". For instance, does prestige have a place on a desert island on your own? Does it have a place in anything other than a group of 3 or more people? I'm not sure I follow this, so I will also define what I understand wealth to be. — Antidote

This is exactly my point! There cannot be wealth if there is not a relative point of view of someone producing less.

I wanted to move away from banking because wealth is older than banks and currency.

My apologies, for the repetition. Understood, lets keep away from money. So before money, land owners would have been the wealthy. They would have had wealth from generation to generation based on family name, etc. One could not deny there being land or not, and so wealth was self-regulating. Two or more people couldn't make a claim on the land. Either someone owned it or they didn't.

I was taught the value of delayed gratification and it has served me all my life. I have watched as others don't value this, and want their reward right now, or even better, they want the reward before the effort goes in. Wealthy people are like the latter, they are getting their reward now but their cost will come later. Those without wealth are like the former, they will get there reward at the end. Now, as I mentioned before, if you have more than you need, why not give it away? It seems most logically. I believe perhaps this is where prestige comes in, they don't want to give that up.

That said, plenty of land owners have done just that and given up land to the poor, or to those with greater need. If everyone had that attitude, what would the entire wealth system look like?

There is of course, other wealth. Wealth of knowledge, of health, of friends, etc.

You just said it. An illusion. I will read about the value of delayed gratification. Thank you for the tip.

Now, as I mentioned before, if you have more than you need, why not give it away? It seems most logically.

To save it in case some possible disaster scenario or to pass on children so they can start off life in a better place.

Yes you could, and to be fair, that's how people look at it now. So again, its not based on "need" its based on "maybe needed" and it becomes a reason not to give it away and the imbalance remains.

No problem, you're very welcome. I found a good book on wealth called, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", I think I had the 2nd book (Rich Dad Poor Dad 2). It was fantastic and gave a balanced view on wealth and was a good guide between all levels. It would certainly be more helpful than my ramblings!

Because the piece of paper we call "money" is an I.O.U. — Antidote

While money is fundamentally connected to debt, it hasn't been directly convertible for decades. And even when it was, it was mostly a theoretical exercise. Money works regardless.

None of the items are wealth. The illusion is that if 5 people each have a ticket that says they are owed £1000, but there's only £2000 available, £3000 is an illusion in that it doesn't exist (times this by a billion). The items are all consumables items, continually devaluing to nothing. It would be hard to even call them assets, because they do not increase in value year on year. — Antidote

You have unusual definitions for both "wealth" and "assets". What I was going for is this: I can actually use my wealth to acquire things I want. Therefore, it can't be all illusory, can it?

However, history tells us (taking Germany in the 1930s) that when you have nothing to lose, because their economy was so bad after WW1, war is a big boost to the economy. — Antidote

Wars are usually pretty terrible for the economy.

Of course. Food and shelter is not the only thing to trade. This is why this example takes place in early humanity, where few other necessities existed at the time.
Remember that many of our needs are invented as we go along.
In my example, the technology in had is very limited to the needs. — Zehir

What I think you're missing is that trade need not be limited to necessities. Why not use your surplus to buy that nice shiny rock the neighboring tribe has found?

That was the very first book I read on my own.

What I think you're missing is that trade need not be limited to necessities. Why not use your surplus to buy that nice shiny rock the neighboring tribe has found? — Echarmion

I do believe that shiny rocks became a thing way after the concept of trade and wealth. After all, there was no other way to store value or divide assets. How else can you trade 7 chickens for one cow?
Kill the cow and left 1/2 of it to rot is not a good business model.
Salt was also a thing to store value but I could see mischievous children destroying stored wealth with water.

I do believe that shiny rocks became a thing way after the concept of trade and wealth. — Zehir

And why do you believe that?

Salt was also a thing to store value but I could see mischievous children destroying stored wealth with water. — Zehir

Access to salt would also have been extremely limited. There are other ways to preserve foodstuffs, but in general there wouldn't have been a way to store large quantities.

While money is fundamentally connected to debt, it hasn't been directly convertible for decades. And even when it was, it was mostly a theoretical exercise. Money works regardless. — Echarmion

Yes, it was detached from the Gold Standard in the 70s (when "I promise to pay the bearer x pounds in gold") meant you could walk into a bank and ask for the gold equivalent - no one did, but that was to build confidence. Don't for one moment imagine that this is not the case, it's just not the case for the people in street. Take China, when they massed up a load of dollar bills for their trading with USA. What did they do? They demanded the equivalent in gold and the USA gave it to them, they had too. Nowadays we have "fiat" currency backed only by confidence, because you and I cannot exchange it for gold. What can we exchange it for? Goods and services, that's all. It's not connected to debt, it is debt (it is: who owes what to who). It is a debt on the future economy, i.e. you will call the debt in (ask for the value) at a future point.

Ask your bank who owns your deposited money? They own it, not you. You are their debtor! They are a business, and businesses that fail are perfectly entitled not to pay their debts (that's you). So the Government or the Fed or whoever say, "Don't panic, the tax payer will guarantee you will be paid back) if the bank fails, the tax payer will have to bail it out (you will end up paying yourself back as a tax payer). Basically, this is the snake eating it's own tail. What a clever move by the bankers. Imagine I could have a business and get that type of guarantee, it would make life a lot easier because now I have no responsibility for your deposit what so ever. If it fails, so what, the tax payer picks it up.

As long as there is confidence, money works. In the same way if we all agree a banana is worth the same as a car, we can exchange one for the other. Money will continue to work provided everybody doesn't ask for it back all at once, and provided the bank doesn't fail. Why would a bank fail? Because now they own your money, they can sell it to other people (loans). You carry the liability, their earn the interest/reward.

But they don't have all your money, because they sold it on the loan, if you ask for it back, they haven't got it. But provided a low enough number of people ask for their money back, they can give you another depositors money!

If everyone asks for their money back.... shit, they haven't got it, close the doors and shut down the websites so they can't draw it out! That's what happened in Cyprus. In the UK, we led the lamb to the slaughter in the form of Northern Rock, who went bankrupt in a day when all the depositors lost confidence in the bank and demanded all their money back, but they didn't close their doors! This was in 2007.

You have unusual definitions for both "wealth" and "assets". What I was going for is this: I can actually use my wealth to acquire things I want. Therefore, it can't be all illusory, can it? — Echarmion

Yes we do appear to have different definitions of wealth/assets. You see, anyone with wealth has one objective, to hold on to that wealth for as long as possible (delayed gratification). The fact you say you can buy stuff with your wealth, suggests its not wealth, it just savings, or money in the bank. Will your wealth be able to buy you the thing you want in 20 years time? In 40? In 3 generations. That's what wealth is. Just because your "money" is good today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow, hence why nearly all wealth is tied up in inflation-beating assets (houses, businesses, long term government loans, etc) and no wealth is left in a bank account, or non inflation vehicles.

Assets are things that make you income. Yes you can pretend that your TV and your car and all that "stuff" is an asset because someone said it is, but its not. It doesn't generate income, instead it ties up your capital (an bad thing) and then loses money whilst making you no money. Do you see?

Not an asset
You buy a car for £5000 of your own money. After 3 years you sell it for £3000. You have lost £2000.

An Asset
You buy a car for £5000 of your money. You hire it out for £200 a day. In year 1, you have hired it out 25 times. You have earnt £5000 in hire fees, covering the initial cost of the car. Year 2 and 3 you hire it out for 25 times each year (50 more times). By year 3, you have eared £15,000. This covers the cost of the car, the repairs and fuel and you made profit. After 3 years you scrap the car and send it to the scrap yard.

Of the two scenarios, which ones was an asset and which one was a liability? Just because the guy selling the car, or the guy selling the TV tells you its an asset, doesn't mean it is.

Wars are usually pretty terrible for the economy. — Echarmion

To be honest, you could google search this one to get the answer. War boosts an economy like nothing else. Read a little history and you will see very clearly.

War boosts the economy because not only will land have less owners, but also because progress becomes leaner. A house without household has great value.

Very true, but lets not forget all the weapons we need to make to. That helps the economy big time. Tanks, bullets, uniforms, food, fuel, missles, aeroplanes, boats, etc etc. Billions and billions worth.

Tim Morgan — Antidote

I think I used to know two people who knew Tim Morgan. His name often came up in conversation, as that of a person who figured things out -- he created masterful conspiracy theories, with well documented facts, such as explanation to some of the events of 9/11.

I think this financial solution thing Tim proposes is based on a mistaken paradigm. Money has imaginary value, it's true. But wealth is not money. We measure wealth in money, because its imaginary value is a convenient vehicle to 1. compare and 2. establish absolute value of potential purchasing power.

In the case of Cypros, they could have easily printed enough money to accommodate the rush on banks. This was the stupidest solution they did, by destroying bank balances. Printing money is so easy! Easier than saying one-two-three.

Finally: the rich will gripe about getting their billions erased, but the eradication of money will hit the poor harder than the rich.

The sysem of money is a closed loop. The more you print the more you devalue it, until, like early germany, you need a wheelborrow of money to buy a loaf of bread. I still have a 1 million Deutsche mark note!

Whatever the measure of wealth, it is in a constant state of atrophy. Otherwise wealth would be static.

The poor already have no wealth, it affects them not.

It is a debt on the future economy, i.e. you will call the debt in (ask for the value) at a future point. — Antidote

I'd agree that money represents delayed consumption. You're giving away something you have right now (like your work) but get nothing immediately in return. Instead you get money, that you can then exchange for goods and services later. In that sense, all money is debt. It follows that, if you were to pay back all debts, all money would be consumed. But no-one really wants that, since money is so convenient.

Ask your bank who owns your deposited money? They own it, not you. You are their debtor! — Antidote

That makes no sense to me. It's my money, therefore they owe it to me, not the other way round.

What a clever move by the bankers. Imagine I could have a business and get that type of guarantee, it would make life a lot easier because now I have no responsibility for your deposit what so ever. If it fails, so what, the tax payer picks it up. — Antidote

Indeed. Neoliberalism has been taken too far, and that is one result.

Why would a bank fail? Because now they own your money, they can sell it to other people (loans). You carry the liability, their earn the interest/reward. — Antidote

That's really a problem with a capitalist economy in general, not specifically with fiat money.

You see, anyone with wealth has one objective, to hold on to that wealth for as long as possible (delayed gratification). — Antidote

And your justification for that claim is?

The fact you say you can buy stuff with your wealth, suggests its not wealth, it just savings, or money in the bank. Will your wealth be able to buy you the thing you want in 20 years time? In 40? In 3 generations. That's what wealth is. — Antidote

I think what you're describing would commonly be referred to as "capital". Investments that keep generating returns.

Assets are things that make you income. Yes you can pretend that your TV and your car and all that "stuff" is an asset because someone said it is, but its not. It doesn't generate income, instead it ties up your capital (an bad thing) and then loses money whilst making you no money. Do you see? — Antidote

Technically my car makes money, because it gets me to work. And if we're treating individuals like a business, all the necessities of life would be assets, since they are required for you to function. One might exclude stuff like TVs or gaming consoles, of course.

To be honest, you could google search this one to get the answer. War boosts an economy like nothing else. Read a little history and you will see very clearly. — Antidote

I have read "a little" history. I haven't arrived at the same conclusion you have. There are isolated examples of wars helping an economy (like the US in WW1), but for the countries that the war is fought in, it's usually pretty terrible economically (see all other participants of WW 1).

The sysem of money is a closed loop. — Antidote

Not quite. It is attached to material goods and services. A haircut may have gone up in price three times, while the price of a loaf of bread may have gone up only to double itself between the beginning and the end of the same period.

Also, there may have been one million loaves of bread when the American economy consisted one billion dollars totally in printed money or electronic dollars; but now that there is one quatrillion (I don't know the exact figure; let's say a hundred thousand billion) there are not one million loaves of bread, but a hundred million loaves of bread, putting the price of bread up not a hundred thouasand times, but only one thousand times.

These are math examples, and the important thing is to understand the math, it is not important here whether the actual figures I quoted are actually factual historically correct figures.

Indeed. Neoliberalism has been taken too far, and that is one result. — Echarmion

I heard from reliable sources that it was neoconservatism that has been taken too far, and the phenomenon was due to the larger impact of neoconservatism.

What I am trying to say is that it's not liberalism or conservatism at all that was responsible for taking the responsibility away from the banks; it was a stupid policy by the state, but a necessary one, because the system would really have collapsed if all responsible would have been pursued under the law. I mean, all bankers ought to have been put away, and the economy absolutely would have collapsed that way. The guilty walks free. Is that liberalism, or conservatism? I say it was in this instance the necessity of economism.

That makes no sense to me. It's my money, therefore they owe it to me, not the other way round. — Echarmion

I appreciate it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't change the fact. I would test it, phone up your bank and ask them. If you owed the money in your bank account, then if they earn money off it, then they have to give you the money. As an example, HMRC do this correctly. If you over-pay them, recognising it is not their money and they have deprived you of such, they pay you interest. Likewise, if you don't pay them on time, you have deprived them of their money and they charge you interest. Banks do not work this way. Sadly, when you deposit the money, it's theirs, and you are now their debtor. This is how banks work. Sadly, most people do not know this and therefore carry a terrible liability with no reward.

That's really a problem with a capitalist economy in general, not specifically with fiat money. — Echarmion

Absolutely right, it is a flaw in the capitalist system which really in concerned only with "who owes what to whom". Fiat currency was just a way to allow more money to be created that wasn't linked to anthing (i.e. illusionary). That's why capitalism will fail eventually like all flawed systems. It is inevitable. Every flawed system in history eventually failed.

And your justification for that claim is? — Echarmion

Those holding the wealth do not give it away to the poor, who are in greater need of it. In fact, the wealthy then pay "accounts / advisors" to tell them what to do with it to make sure they don't lose it. These "experts" are no more then people who understand the law, and therefore how to circumvent it. Otherwise, the wealthy would pay more in tax, but they don't, they pay less. If I am an employee on PAYE, I have no control over my tax, in fact, I don't even see it. If I am a Director, I can manipulate my tax liability to almost zero. In the form of dividends. Until 4 years ago, a Director dividend was balanced by what they call "tax credit". Dividend tax was 20%, tax credit was 20%. I don't need my accountant to tell me that means I used to pay nothing in tax on dividends.

I think what you're describing would commonly be referred to as "capital". Investments that keep generating returns. — Echarmion

No, I was describing assets. There are 4 elements to a financial statement. Income, Expense, Assets, Liabilities. The difference between income and expense is called "cash flow", beit negative or positive. Assets are considered "long term" or "fixed". There's plenty of info out there on this, so little point me repeating it. People who sells assets do so to raise "capital" or/and to reduce liabilities.

echnically my car makes money, because it gets me to work. And if we're treating individuals like a business, all the necessities of life would be assets, since they are required for you to function. One might exclude stuff like TVs or gaming consoles, of course. — Echarmion

Your mixing two things together that are not mixed. Your car gets "YOU" to work, you earn the money, not the car. If your friend gives you a lift to work, your car has not contributed to you "earning money". They are not the same thing.

examples of wars helping an economy (like the US in WW1), but for the countries that the war is fought in, it's usually pretty terrible economically (see all other participants of WW 1). — Echarmion

I'm sorry, but you missed the "elephant in the room". WW1 was nothing in comparison to WW2 for the US economy. Henry Ford was called in to be the manufacturing arm of the war machine, and sold the assets to the UK, who only recently finished paying them off. What pushed the move from wooden boats to metal ones? And why? What was so great about "modular construction" and why did it yield a 10-fold increase in production?

The US joined WW2 in 1941, what turned the tide against Germany was that for the first time in the entire war, the US contribution meant we outstripped the production of new assets. It's common sense, think about it, during wartime, the opposition are blowing up your assets and you are doing the same. If there isn't a resupply effort, the entire arsenal will be wiped out very quickly, hence the reason that aerial support (bombers) target manufacturing installations and "strategic assets". You blow up the oppositions tank factories, and ammunition factories, and mass stores of such.

I do agree, for the people, the ones who have to live through this hell, it's a terrible and awful thing. But for the economy, its very good or they just wouldn't go to war in the first place. Every countries economy is the "crown jewels" and therefore all decisions are made with this in mind.

Yes that's very true. I did mention that early on that money is a call on "products and services", or a claim on the future economy (same difference I guess). The point I was really trying to get across is that the system is only based on "confidence". As long as we all agree that x money buys x products, it's fine. However, the existing wealth in the system is always devalued by the introduction of more money, so those who already have a stake or claim, now have a smaller claim. I liken it to cutting up a pie. Adding more money is just cutting up the existing pieces into smaller bits. The technical terms for this is "inflation", and we can see very clearly why they are so worried about it (the Bank of England have to report every month on the inflation figure, if it goes over 2.5% then they have to come up with a solution for it and justify it). So, that gets difficult, so instead of that, we change the method that calculations inflation, so now we have, RPi, RPX, CPi, CPX, CPiH, etc etc. Do include house prices, don't include house prices. It's just manipulation of the numbers? Why is that important, because the system is based on confidence. If the news say, watch out everyone, inflation is rising, it's a knock to confidence, which will destabilise the system.

My dad in the 70s bought his house for £16,000. He sold it in 2000 (30 years later) for £500,000. That's what printing money does via inflation. Now, as long as wages go up in line with inflation, all is well. Trouble is, that can't happen because business has to make a profit and if we give all the money to the employees, we reduce or profits and then what is the point in owning a business if you make no profit. Wage rises creep around 1.5% whilst the inflation of printing money is around 80% (or whatever, no one really knows its so big). So, who is getting the difference? The bankers are. They are getting super super rich. As it was quoted, a banker can make 10 million dollars on a single transaction. A worker wont make that in a lifetime. Oh, I should have mentioned that population increase also puts a push on inflation as we all need a "basic standard of living".

The current economic system depends on population pyramid, the day there is less population in future generations is the day when modern economy gets wrecked. Otherwise it is just a snowball rolling. Debt to pay debt.