On 14-10-2009 18:10, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 14-10-2009 1:50, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> That is national banks, not regular.
>>>
>>> All our banks create money out of nothingness. None of them actually 
>>> run printing presses per se.
>>
>> I was thinking you might use it in that way.
> 
> I don't know the difference between what you mean by "national banks" 
> and "regular banks", given that all our banks are national. Maybe a 
> "credit union" would be a regular bank here?

My bank and the others are companies, they do things with money even 
generate it from thin air but they don't print it. All the banks are 
watched by a national bank who does print the money but doesn't have 
private customers. You do have that too, I forgot the names of these 
things. IANAE however.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 1:59, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> There is a risk associated with cash. I think there is a tendency here 
>> to pass regulation that minimizes the cost for the shop owner.
> 
> There's a risk to the shop keeper in accepting cash?
> 
>>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
>>> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>>
>>>     I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have 
>>> probably been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.
>>
>> I am still in the dark what kind of abuse you are talking about.
> 
> Really!?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
> 
> That's one of *many* abuses.

Sure I know of abuse of power at that level. My problem is that I can 
not see how this has any effect of health care insurance, regulation of 
banks, regulating how election campaigns are funded etc.

>> No, what I think is that for at least the level of senator, but 
>> probably even some levels below that, the big companies decide who you 
>> can vote for.
> 
> They unfortunately also determine how that politician votes, regardless 
> of what they promised.

I could only assume that it will have some influence. I take your word 
for it.

>> Why don't you try the BBC model? Oh yes, because someone will pay the 
>> senators to prevent that.
> 
> We have that. It's called "PBS". The problem is people hear we're in 
> debt and taxes are too high, and they cut the funding for stuff like 
> that. Even tho it's 0.01% of the funding for something completely 
> unnecessary that the politicians want.

Indeed, cutting down on money for independent news would be a nice thing 
to put in some unrelated bill if your (re)election was paid for by a 
broadcasting company. At least I think I heard stories of putting 
totally unrelated things in a package deal in the US.

>> There is no way that any John Doe could figure that out for himself. 
> 
> I was amused at some of the stories here where the mortgage brokers and 
> real estate agents get loans and later complain they didn't know they 
> were adjustable. Come now, if you don't, who would?

Nobody.

>>>     Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be 
>>> viewed as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, 
>>> religion, etc). Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that 
>>> already.
>>
>> What makes you think we don't have such a history?
> 
> Dunno. Did you ever have a civil war over whether to get rid of slavery 
> or not? :-)

Ever heard of WW2?

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 0:48, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 13-10-2009 0:55, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Children do have bank accounts.
>>>> Huh, OK.
>>> I'm 18 and I don't have one. I only own cash.
>> where do you live?
> 
> Argentina.

Interesting to know that it still works like that there. I don't know 
much about Argentina. I hoped that when Maxima became our crown-princess 
there would be more in the news about south america. Hasn't happened yet.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>     I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and 
>> perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same, 
>> really. Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your salary 
>> from the bank.
> 
> Right. The point was getting paid in a way that the government didn't 
> necessarily know where you are or where you're spending your money.

What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy 
sensitive information? I think our government is by law not allowed to 
know this information. They can get it in a investigation of a criminal 
case, but if they get it in any other situation people might get fired 
and ministers send home.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> My bank and the others are companies, they do things with money even 
> generate it from thin air but they don't print it. 

Right. Same here.

> All the banks are 
> watched by a national bank who does print the money but doesn't have 
> private customers. 

Yes. We have the federal reserve, which creates the money (along with the 
individual banks) by basically loaning out money they don't have. The actual 
pieces of paper and bills that come out of the ATM are printed by the 
Treasury department, which is part of the federal government and not part of 
a bank.

So now I understand your distinction. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/14/09 15:44, andrel wrote:
> On 14-10-2009 18:15, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and
>>> perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same,
>>> really. Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your
>>> salary from the bank.
>>
>> Right. The point was getting paid in a way that the government didn't
>> necessarily know where you are or where you're spending your money.
>
> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy
> sensitive information? I think our government is by law not allowed to
> know this information. They can get it in a investigation of a criminal
> case, but if they get it in any other situation people might get fired
> and ministers send home.

	Over here, in recent times, if there's an abuse that's discovered, they 
often just pass legislation to retroactively allow it in the name of 
national security.

	That's what happened with the telephone surveillance. I don't know if 
what the government did was illegal, but the telephone companies who 
agreed to it without the required steps (warrant, etc) *did* break the 
law. And last year the Senate voted to retroactively make it legal. 
Pre-president Obama flip flopped and voted in favor of immunity. Needed 
votes, you know ;-)

	There are indications that the CIA, etc were involved in torture and 
can be held accountable (it's not really clear). Yet so far this 
administration hasn't conducted an investigation - although they keep 
suggesting that they _may_.

	If they get away with stuff like this, I'm not really hopeful they'll 
care that much when it comes to misuse of private information. Perhaps 
people don't care that much about the torture (you know, a dirty filthy 
Arab terrorist is the victim...), but most don't seem to care about the 
surveillance or the library books, which is stuff that involves *them*, 
and not someone classified as an enemy.

	Once in a while, though, lawsuits are put into motion and the courts 
rule against the government. It's a slow process, and doesn't affect 
cases like the telephone surveillance where Congress passes legislation 
allowing it - unless that legislation turns out to be unconstitutional.

	

-- 
"I solved my drinking problem. I joined Alcoholics Anonymous. I still 
drink, but I use a different name"
	-- Rodney Dangerfield

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy 
> sensitive information? 

The problem is that our politicians would have to actually vote to reduce 
their own power. That's extrememly rare.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Yes. We have the federal reserve, which creates the money (along with 
> the individual banks) by basically loaning out money they don't have. 

BTW, that's a private company too, not controlled by the federal government.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 23:33, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Yes. We have the federal reserve, which creates the money (along with 
>> the individual banks) by basically loaning out money they don't have. 
> 
> BTW, that's a private company too, not controlled by the federal 
> government.

Here it is independent, government funded but not controlled.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 23:32, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy 
>> sensitive information? 
> 
> The problem is that our politicians would have to actually vote to 
> reduce their own power. That's extrememly rare.

Here is is quite common.

Post a reply to this message