Comments by "duncan smith" (@duncansmith7562) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

@downshift4503 Dictionary definition: CASH = "money in coins or notes". That's it. NO MENTION OF GOVERNMENT. Get it? An IOU is a NOTE, therefore it is CASH. Got it?
1
@downshift4503 where is your homework on how tobacco was used as a means of exchange during the colonial period? you have so much to learn.
1
@downshift4503 Of course cash is created by the government, but cash is also in circulation outside of government control. so, what's your point?
1
@downshift4503 Cash does circulate without the need for creation. As I told you, when the South had its printing presses closed down, the economy continued with a period of deflation.
1
@downshift4503 Cash circulates without being created. But government only adds EXTRA cash into the system. The system functions fine when the government doesn't do so. Sure, over time cash will leave the economy, but cash will also enter the economy from other countries. Cash doesn't have to "get into the economy" when it has already been IN the economy for centuries!
1
@downshift4503 The problem is I do know what I am talking about, and it is fascinating that when your preconceived narrative is challenged, like blabbing nonsense about cash necessarily being tied to government, your argument just crumbles. Cash is indeed a private sector IOU. I go to my private bank and deposit cash, the next day I withdraw from the private bank and place that same cash in my private pocket. No government participation in that exercise. Just as if I gave you an IOU and you passed on that IOU to your friend, and then I repay your friend the amount stated, no government participation at all. You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
1
@downshift4503 NO! The government is continuously receiving taxes and spending money. Both processes happen at one and the same time. Money came into circulation in the first place as a replacement of personal IOUs, way way back.
1
@downshift4503 ALL notes that promise to pay the bearer the amount stated ARE cash! Not all notes, but IOUs as described above, Get it?
1
@downshift4503 Your tax doesn't mention a lot of things, but that doesn't mean a whole lot! The government will find many different ways of payment if you are in debt and cashless! You would be surprised how many governments around the world accept tax payments in many different forms. Ever been to Oman?
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i so a Virginia planter when he swaps 20 pounds of tobacco for his horse to be shoed is indeed engaged in bartering because, as you said, different things are being swapped.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i barter - exchanging goods or services for other goods or services without using money
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i barter is the exchange of a good OR service, that does not involve money, so you need to look at the dictionary definition and then you will see my example was a perfect example of barter.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i you need to read more history. barter was the basis of trade in many societies before money emerged.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i "money can be made of anything, it just has to be accepted by the ruling authority as a tax receipt" wrong way round. it just has to be accepted by the people. if it is accepted by the people, then it will work in all sectors of the economy, including the one sector known as the government.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i there are many people who, by law, are exempt paying taxes, they pay nothing in pounds and they don't go to prison. there are many who owe enormous amounts of taxes and they don't go to prison either, but they negotiate deals to resolve the situation, or just leave the country and don't pay a penny. life is so much more complicated and nuanced than you think.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i "you'll end up in prison" exactly how many prison cells in the UK are empty now and awaiting someone who is a year late on paying their taxes, do you think?
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i the word is "jurisdiction". as pointed out, no, "they" (the citizens) are NOT. Many citizens pay no tax. so, it sounds like your argument is reduced to the notion that in the UK, the official currency is pounds, either Scottish or English, and those who do owe taxes must pay those taxes in Scottish or English pounds, and never in the history of tax disputes has any individual ever settled a tax dispute with payment in any other form, ever. well, fascinating. anything more to say for yourself?
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i I never mentioned cigarettes. I mentioned tobacco. it was your inadequate powers of reason that assumed I referred to cigarettes, when it was tobacco leaves used as a means of exchange, but this is par for the course when it comes to the wild and inaccurate assumptions you make.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i no, you did not establish that what gives a currency any value is the legal requirement to pay tax in said currency. you fail to grasp that what gives any currency any value is that it is accepted as a means of payment within the community, within a certain society. The Zimbabwean dollar collapsed not because it was no longer accepted as the currency in which taxes were paid, but because the Zimbabwean people gave up on exchanging bits of paper with "10,000,000,000 Zimbabwean dollars" written on it, and started accepting only US dollars or South African rand. Currency is valid only when accepted as having a certain value by the people using it. Its validity has nothing to do with whether taxes can be paid in it. Learn the basics of economics!
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i the "pedantic" point highlighted, 1. you didn't do your homework and research tobacco leaves as a method of payment in colonial Virginia, and 2. illuminated how easily you assume something that is inaccurate or untrue. your end of term report will reflect the slovenly way in which you approach important topics.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i "they can't pay tax in any other currencies as far as I'm aware, so they don't use these" come on, do some homework! take 5 seconds to research "legal tender in Zimbabwe" and read that the US dollar, British pound, South Africa rand and Botswana pula are all legal tender in Zimbabwe. And all this acceptance of a basket of currencies happened because the people accepted these currencies as having value and was NOTHING to do with a government tax collection decision! until you understand cause and effect you will not understand the basic error you are making. Tax receipts depend on what the citizens accept as having value. The citizens don't perceive a currency as having value because the tax authorities deem it to be so.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i what you call "nitpicking" is me calling out your slovenly way of dealing with the topic in hand. you need to research and read closely before you blab nonsense. it's not a case of "currencies acceptable by the Zimbabwean state" but currencies used by the people that the Zimbabwean state then is forced to accept otherwise the country goes broke! The mistake you are making is thinking the use of currency in society is determined by a central authority, whereas the truth is that the central authority will respond to the realities of currencies in circulation among the citizens when it comes to accepting tax payments. That's why possessions are a means of paying tax debts, even in the UK. For further insights into this topic, toss what Graebers has to say in the bin and observe the real world and learn some history. Your understanding of how the world works is sorely lacking.
1
@patrickokeeffe-i7i back to the use of tobacco leaves as payment in colonial Virginia. tobacco leaves became an acceptable way of settling a debt NOT because the colonial government declared it so, according to their wishes, but because people were already using tobacco as a means of exchanging goods and services. according to you, spending comes first, and the authorities started by using tobacco as the form of payment for services. not so. other way round. Virginia authorities were forced to recognize tobacco as currency because the people were using tobacco as a currency. first came the taxation in the form of tobacco leaves, and thence spending in tobacco leaves, as a reaction to reality on the ground. your fallacious nonsense about authorities spending first and declaring what is the only accepted currency is backwards. economies work on a bottom up basis, not a top down basis. as in Zimbabwe. keep learning!
1
don't listen to this dope. anyone foolish enough to think tackling climate change should be any kind of priority needs their head examined.
1
@CuriousCrow-mp4cx like a "trained economist" never got anything wrong, lol.
1
as usual, wrong way round. you are mixing up cause and effect. high interest rates act to reduce spending and therefore reduce the effects of inflation. fewer people want to, or can, pay more for mortgages etc. rents are sky rocketing because demand is sky rocketing, due to mass immigration. you are clueless about cause and effect.
1
@downshift4503 what came first, the chicken or the egg? way before there was money, in barter societies, the authority would take something of value and then use that to "spend" on the tribe. the notion of taxation and spending predates the government/BOE! The cycle of taxation and spending is as old as mankind. and it is a cycle. spending is done based on tax revenues in house and what can be borrowed.
1
@downshift4503 a bank deposit is just an iou, so, yes, banks do lend out based on the iou's they have on hand.
1
@downshift4503 Of course a bank doesn't lend out its existing liabilities, but the new ones it creates are based most solidly on the the deposits it has on record! you name the bank that totally ignores the deposits it has on record when deciding how and when to loan out! Banks most certainly are intermediaries, in the sense that they are always weighing up what is coming in, in the form of deposits, and what can therefore be loaned out. you talk as if there is no regulation of the banking industry whatsoever!
1
@downshift4503 who mentioned the scale of barter economies? rather strange you suddenly decide the debate must rest on the existence of only large scale barter economies! We are talking about what came first in the mists of time, when barter economies were all small scale! We are talking history, not present day, to understand how the tax and spend cycle got started.
1
@downshift4503 This is where you are mistaken! The money story does indeed start with barter. Money is merely a means to exchange goods and services. Barter is also a means to exchange goods and services. There is zero historical evidence to disprove my assertion of fact as mentioned above. Given you have fallen at the first hurdle, to grasp what money is, then it makes perfect sense that the rest of what you say makes no sense at all. All of your "evidence" is based on a false assumption of the nature of money.
1
@downshift4503 we agreed that banks do not lend out existing deposits. not sure why you had to repeat what we already agree on (not sure your reading comprehension skills are great!). A bank does not create deposits when it creates loans. It creates future deposits when it creates a loan. I am not redefining anything. I am holding you to very close account to the meaning of the words you use. Let me restate. A bank very much acts as an intermediary when it determines how much it can loan based on what it has on hand in the form of deposits. You can blabber on as much as you like about the BoE. That's not what we were debating. We were debating whether spending by any given authority, or taxation by any given authority, comes first. The BoE is not part of that debate.
1
@downshift4503 As I said, your obsession with the BoE is irrelevant. We are talking globally, about what came first, taxation or spending. It was taxation. The origin of £10 notes is irrelevant. The question we are debating is whether £10 notes are created based on tax revenues received, or not. The amount of £10 notes created is very carefully tied to revenues from taxation in house. If it weren't, an infinite number of £10 notes would and could be created.
1
@downshift4503 Really curious about your obsession with what the BoE states. Do you take BoE publications as some kind of Gospel?
1
@downshift4503 in a barter system, everyone has something that can be considered as a tax contribution. the feudal barren ain't gonna improve the town's defences out of his own pocket first and then hope to be reimbursed by donations from his vassals the following year! The feudal barren is going to demand eggs, poultry, crops, labour, first, and then later turn his attention to devoting what resources might be needed to building the city wall. everyone can pay a tax when they have any good that is accepted as payment.
1
@downshift4503 Like you, David Graeber is very confused about exactly what money is and how it works. Both of you assume an a priori starting point for the function of money and disregard transactions in barter economies. Once both of you have grasped the true nature of taxation and spending then the world will make a lot more sense to you. I'm still awaiting your answer on why an infinite number of £10 notes aren't created if spending is not dependent at all on tax revenues in house.
1
@downshift4503 "why should there be infinite £10 notes if the government creates its own money?" because the government is elected to serve the people, and the people would surely love to have a continuous stream of cash handed over to them. it would guarantee the government get re-elected. that's why it would be a great idea, IF spending is not dependent on tax revenues in house. you see, you can't answer the question, because the truth contradicts your warped theory. the government is limited in how much money it creates by its tax revenues in house. if your theory was right, (that spending comes first), then why not just spend infinitely and immediately?
1
@downshift4503 I have offered evidence. I told you, that in the first days of barter, something had to be given up before anything was received from on high, from any authority. you need to read some history. you have already demonstrated that you don't understand the nature of money. I had to give you the definition and show that barter also acts as money, as it is a means of exchanging goods and services. now, if you decide to ignore my evidence, that's your choice. But the fact remains, taxation comes before spending, it always has, and spending cannot happen without reference to revenues in house from past taxation. you need to re-think everything from scratch, just as those followers of Newton had to do when Einstein clarified some basic laws of the universe.
1
@downshift4503 but let's leave the argument there, as your knowledge of history seems to lack how goods and services were initially exchanged and how your definition of money is so different from mine. just be aware that going around spouting "spending comes before taxation" is nonsense and will be called out by many of us who know differently.
1
@downshift4503 oh come on! you need me to do your homework for you? use any search engine to learn about what barter is and its history! it's common sense! stone age man would have had possessions, goods and services that could be donated to the tribal elders who then would share out, according to their spending decisions, as appropriate to the rest of the tribe. I'm amazed you need someone to tell you this and to introduce you to the idea of a search engine and the notion of research! Are you 12 years old?
1
@downshift4503 honestly, if you can't accept that barter societies once existed, then I can't help you. you need to read some history. now, this one will blow your mind....the government is not the ONLY supplier of currency! If you give me £10 for a Spanish lesson, I, the taxpayer, got £10 from a source other than government! i know, amazing isn't it? sounds like you live in N Korea, where society is 100% government and society can't operate on a private basis!
1
@Mikeybhoy1979 the problem is Richard doesn't understand Richard's talk on taxation. Tax is income that must be paid to the government.
1
@stephfoxwell4620 money supply creates and controls inflation. nothing else.
1
you are very confused about the nature of money. gold and silver have intrinsic worth. like property, there is demand for them in their own right. 20 dollar bills have no intrinsic worth. A goldsmith can do nothing with a 20 dollar bill. money is a means of exchanging goods and services. it's the goods and services that you need to focus on. not the money.
1
when you say "you eventually run out of assets to sell", who is the "you" exactly?
1