Until the lender pays it back then then the bank cannot put that money into circulation obviously. What are you talking about?
Of course they can put the monthly loan payment in circulation, as well as the interest. The money the bank loaned isn't 'lost.' It's supported by deposits and other loans that are being paid back,
Why isn't it creating wealth if it creates purchasing power? The purchasing power buys something of value.
Let's say a person takes out a loan and buys a $1M house. Once the loan is paid off, the house is his. That's something of real value isn't it.
In addition, while the person is paying back the loan, the bank has that money in circulation so other people can get loans to buy things of value.
The person who bought the house employed builders and contractors who will buy things of value with their profit and purchase from farms and factories. Maybe the builder will open another business with the money he made from the houses.
The builders obtained payment for their labour because they added value to the property. The Banks played a role in this but they added no value to the property themselves. They took advantage of a situation.
The point is that wealth and value created by others moved up to Banks and finance houses etc. It was not trickled down to these builders. Quite the opposite.
Or then you have people like Bernie Sanders who got welfare, tapped into others' electric lines and got popular by promising to spread wealth he doesn't have a plan for creating.
The builders obtained payment for their labour because they added value to the property. The Banks played a role in this but they added no value to the property themselves. They took advantage of a situation.
The point is that wealth and value created by others moved up to Banks and finance houses etc. It was not trickled down to these builders. Quite the opposite.
The bank doesn't have to do something physical to create wealth.
Let's say the builders erect a $1M house on the property. The owner turns around and sells it for $1.5 million. Now the owner has increased wealth. Let's say the house owner becomes part owner of a whole food market.
Let's say the builder buys another business, a dry cleaner, with the money he made from construction. Now the builder increased his wealth.
Now all the workers employed by the food market, the builder and the dry cleaner, have more purchasing power to buy from farms and factories.
Money that flows upward to the bank results in the bank employing thousands more workers who have purchasing power. The taxes the employed pay, go toward services for the poor.
The banks do not have to produce products , only people's ability to purchase them.
The bank doesn't have to do something physical to create wealth.
Let's say the builders erect a $1M house on the property. The owner turns around and sells it for $1.5 million. Now the owner has increased wealth. Let's say the house owner becomes part owner of a whole food market.
Let's say the builder buys another business, a dry cleaner, with the money he made from construction. Now the builder increased his wealth.
Now all the workers employed by the food market, the builder and the dry cleaner, have more purchasing power to buy from farms and factories.
Money that flows upward to the bank results in the bank employing thousands more workers who have purchasing power.
The banks do not have to produce products , only people's ability to purchase them
So back on topic. Religion I think should be a personal matter. The state should have no say in ordaining what religion people follow or do not follow.
Only in a truly secular state will the religious and the non-religious have equal rights.
No. You aren't understanding that the money that flows upward to the bank, allows the bank to create hundreds of thousands of jobs so that the money made by those workers, trickles down into the economy.
The bank doesn't get to keep all the money. It circulates it and loans it out again.
Plus the incomes the bankers themselves have, trickle money down into the economy with their purchasing power. Create more jobs.
No. You aren't understanding that the money that flows upward to the bank, allows the bank to create hundreds of thousands of jobs so that the money made by those workers, trickles down into the economy.
The bank doesn't get to keep all the money. It circulates it and loans it out again. M
Plus the incomes the bankers themselves have, trickle money down into the economy with their purchasing power. Create more jobs.
So if the money flows to the Banks they do not even create money? What do they create in that case? At best they redistribute what others have created. They are trickling back down what has been trickled up to them by the actual originators of value.
That is indeed what Banks do nothing much more. and nothing less and sometimes they do it very badly and almost always they charge too much for their role as middlemen.
No. You aren't understanding that the money that flows upward to the bank, allows the bank to create hundreds of thousands of jobs so that the money made by those workers, trickles down into the economy.
The bank doesn't get to keep all the money. It circulates it and loans it out again. M
Plus the incomes the bankers themselves have, trickle money down into the economy with their purchasing power. Create more jobs.
What was that story about Jesus and the money lenders again? Or that old saying about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles?
So if the money flows to the Banks they do not even create money? What do they create in that case? At best they redistribute what others have created. They are trickling back down what has been trickled up to them by the actual originators of value.
That is indeed what Banks do nothing much more. and nothing less and sometimes they do it very badly and almost always they charge too much for their role as middlemen.
Yes they do 'create money' by making loans. They fund new loans by creating new deposit accounts for the borrowers.
This isn't problematic unless the banks misjudge the ability of borrowers to pay back.
Otherwise people can't purchase anything until they can pay cash for it, meaning there is less demand, and less is produced. Who is going to produce new products if people can't buy them?
He didn't say that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven. The eye of a needle isn't an actual needle, more likely a gate that camels could crawl under to get into Jerusalem.
So yes it would be difficult if the rich person wasn't generous. Solomon and David in the Bible, Joseph of Aromathea were rich.
Interssting though for atheists to worry about who will get into heaven.
He didn't say that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven. The eye of a needle isn't an actual needle, more likely a gate that camels could crawl under to get into Jerusalem.
So yes it would be difficult if the rich person wasn't generous. Solomon and David in the Bible, Joseph of Aromathea were rich.
Interssting though for atheists to worry about who will get into heaven.
Yes, and would you say the banks were generous? Hmmm...
And no, I don't think anyone's going to heaven, because I think heaven is total BS... But I just find religious hypocrisy incredibly irritating. Then again, the US is pretty good at it... So is the rest of the world, but the US... Well, they manage to take religious bollocks that one step further.
He didn't say that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven. The eye of a needle isn't an actual needle, more likely a gate that camels could crawl under to get into Jerusalem.
So yes it would be difficult if the rich person wasn't generous. Solomon and David in the Bible, Joseph of Aromathea were rich.
Interssting though for atheists to worry about who will get into heaven.
Atheists don't worry about it because it doesn't exist and no intelligent / loving God would use the very human concept of blackmail and threatening torture - sounds more like ISIS to me.
Regarding Heaven, you know that saying "if something sounds too good to be true..." ?
Yes, and would you say the banks were generous? Hmmm...
And no, I don't think anyone's going to heaven, because I think heaven is total BS... But I just find religious hypocrisy incredibly irritating. Then again, the US is pretty good at it... So is the rest of the world, but the US... Well, they manage to take religious bollocks that one step further.
You can't reasonably imply ( if you are) that bankers are automatically Christians, let alone right wing ones. They may also be liberals, secularists, atheists. Especially in the UK, right?
Each person has to be responsible for his or her behavior, charities, generosity and such. People aren't automatically good just because they're poor either. Or good because they donate to charities, for that matter.
I don't think being rich in itself has much to do with the afterlife.
So back on topic. Religion I think should be a personal matter. The state should have no say in ordaining what religion people follow or do not follow.
Only in a truly secular state will the religious and the non-religious have equal rights.
I agree with you Richard. From an entirely different perspective. But it's time to separate church and state. For many diverse reasons.
Believe it or not, this wasn't meant to be a "religion" question.
Not about the Bible or any particular belief.
But really interesting replies so thanks all for the input.
Read all sorts about money, banking and atheism.
Was just a question about the (supposed) separation of Church and State with regards to the United States. I wasn't exactly sure who brought up God at the convention. Just that I heard it. Looks it was a group called Mothers Of The Movement. Parents / family members of the victims of gun crime.
As much as I feel for them losing a loved one, why were they allowed to use the convention to express their beliefs? Losing a loved one should not give anyone the right to push a religious view.
Hence the Church / State question, what with this being a political event.
Believe it or not, this wasn't meant to be a "religion" question.
Not about the Bible or any particular belief.
But really interesting replies so thanks all for the input.
Read all sorts about money, banking and atheism.
Was just a question about the (supposed) separation of Church and State with regards to the United States. I wasn't exactly sure who brought up God at the convention. Just that I heard it. Looks it was a group called Mothers Of The Movement. Parents / family members of the victims of gun crime.
As much as I feel for them losing a loved one, why were they allowed to use the convention to express their beliefs?
Hence the Church / State question, what with this being a political event.
They can use a convention to express their beliefs. As long as they don't make a law that forces others to accept a particular religious belief.
You can't reasonably imply ( if you are) that bankers are automatically Christians, let alone right wing ones. They may also be liberals, secularists, atheists. Especially in the UK, right?
Each person has to be responsible for his or her behavior, charities, generosity and such. People aren't automatically good just because they're poor either. Or good because they donate to charities, for that matter.
I don't think being rich in itself has much to do with the afterlife.
I never said all bankers are automatically Christians. Stop inferring. I just never thought you'd buy into the bollocks of "trickle down economics" and the big banking system. Banks DO take advantage of people, as do big businesses, and it is a little warped. I can't see Jesus buying into it all to be honest, and if Jesus genuinely would, well then he's not quite the character I thought he was.
But then again, the Vatican's never been short of a bob or two, loads of investments all over the place - including in banking, chemicals, etc - so perhaps I've got Jesus all wrong. Maybe Jesus would like to have a mansion, a yacht in St Tropez and buckets of champagne on chill. I guess I'm merely stating that out of all of the BS to be found from the Bible, the Moneylenders in the Church (someone should tell the Pope) and the metaphor of the Camel and the Needle were pretty good ones. But I guess they're just one of those "ignore it" verses from the Bible in Christianity.
Which begs the question - if the Church invests so heavily in the economy which is seemingly the backbone of the state - how can there be a separation?
I never said all bankers are automatically Christians. Stop inferring. I just never thought you'd buy into the bollocks of "trickle down economics" and the big banking system. Banks DO take advantage of people, as do big businesses, and it is a little warped. I can't see Jesus buying into it all to be honest, and if Jesus genuinely would, well then he's not quite the character I thought he was.
But then again, the Vatican's never been short of a bob or two, loads of investments all over the place - including in banking, chemicals, etc - so perhaps I've got Jesus all wrong. Maybe Jesus would like to have a mansion, a yacht in St Tropez and buckets of champagne on chill. I guess I'm merely stating that out of all of the BS to be found from the Bible, the Moneylenders in the Church (someone should tell the Pope) and the metaphor of the Camel and the Needle were pretty good ones. But I guess they're just one of those "ignore it" verses from the Bible in Christianity.
Which begs the question - if the Church invests so heavily in the economy which is seemingly the backbone of the state - how can there be a separation?
I buy into trickle down capitalism because I've seen it work. Not perfectly of course, but it works. As opposed to, those like Bernie who think they can just take money from the rich and redistribute it, without a thought where the next batch will come from.
The Church isn't Jesus of course.
My point is I don't personally think that a person who works hard, is loyal and dependable, takes care of his family, gives back to society would necessarily have a hard time with an afterlife.
Jesus also said, Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's... So he likely understood the reality of life and would understand it today.
Lets make this question about who creates wealth and things of value simple.
You wake up tomorrow with two options
1 All the farmers and fishers are gone but we still have bankers and economists and capitalists with money to invest.
2 We still have farmers and fishers but no banks etc.
Which do you chose?
Or lets make it even simpler; you find yourself marooned on an uninhabited island do you (Assuming there is no phone signal )
1 start hunting/fishing/planting crops
2 Open a bank
Kind of a bit too simplistic because you've just devalued billions of peoples employment worth with that criteria
Comments
Of course they can put the monthly loan payment in circulation, as well as the interest. The money the bank loaned isn't 'lost.' It's supported by deposits and other loans that are being paid back,
The builders obtained payment for their labour because they added value to the property. The Banks played a role in this but they added no value to the property themselves. They took advantage of a situation.
The point is that wealth and value created by others moved up to Banks and finance houses etc. It was not trickled down to these builders. Quite the opposite.
3 Go mad after a few months, open a sperm bank and start f*****g coconuts.
Very interesting how you denigrate unearned income that others receive but commend unearned income when you are the recipient.
The bank doesn't have to do something physical to create wealth.
Let's say the builders erect a $1M house on the property. The owner turns around and sells it for $1.5 million. Now the owner has increased wealth. Let's say the house owner becomes part owner of a whole food market.
Let's say the builder buys another business, a dry cleaner, with the money he made from construction. Now the builder increased his wealth.
Now all the workers employed by the food market, the builder and the dry cleaner, have more purchasing power to buy from farms and factories.
Money that flows upward to the bank results in the bank employing thousands more workers who have purchasing power. The taxes the employed pay, go toward services for the poor.
The banks do not have to produce products , only people's ability to purchase them.
You have just conceded, indeed made my point.
Only in a truly secular state will the religious and the non-religious have equal rights.
No. You aren't understanding that the money that flows upward to the bank, allows the bank to create hundreds of thousands of jobs so that the money made by those workers, trickles down into the economy.
The bank doesn't get to keep all the money. It circulates it and loans it out again.
Plus the incomes the bankers themselves have, trickle money down into the economy with their purchasing power. Create more jobs.
So if the money flows to the Banks they do not even create money? What do they create in that case? At best they redistribute what others have created. They are trickling back down what has been trickled up to them by the actual originators of value.
That is indeed what Banks do nothing much more. and nothing less and sometimes they do it very badly and almost always they charge too much for their role as middlemen.
What was that story about Jesus and the money lenders again? Or that old saying about rich men, camels and the eyes of needles?
He threw the money changers out because they were in the temple.
Early example of separation of church and state, lol.
Yes they do 'create money' by making loans. They fund new loans by creating new deposit accounts for the borrowers.
This isn't problematic unless the banks misjudge the ability of borrowers to pay back.
Otherwise people can't purchase anything until they can pay cash for it, meaning there is less demand, and less is produced. Who is going to produce new products if people can't buy them?
That is the role of banks, financing.
And rich men going to heaven?
He didn't say that it's impossible for a rich man to go to heaven. The eye of a needle isn't an actual needle, more likely a gate that camels could crawl under to get into Jerusalem.
So yes it would be difficult if the rich person wasn't generous. Solomon and David in the Bible, Joseph of Aromathea were rich.
Interssting though for atheists to worry about who will get into heaven.
Yes, and would you say the banks were generous? Hmmm...
And no, I don't think anyone's going to heaven, because I think heaven is total BS... But I just find religious hypocrisy incredibly irritating. Then again, the US is pretty good at it... So is the rest of the world, but the US... Well, they manage to take religious bollocks that one step further.
Atheists don't worry about it because it doesn't exist and no intelligent / loving God would use the very human concept of blackmail and threatening torture - sounds more like ISIS to me.
Regarding Heaven, you know that saying "if something sounds too good to be true..." ?
You can't reasonably imply ( if you are) that bankers are automatically Christians, let alone right wing ones. They may also be liberals, secularists, atheists. Especially in the UK, right?
Each person has to be responsible for his or her behavior, charities, generosity and such. People aren't automatically good just because they're poor either. Or good because they donate to charities, for that matter.
I don't think being rich in itself has much to do with the afterlife.
Where did I denigrate unearned income?
I agree with you Richard. From an entirely different perspective. But it's time to separate church and state. For many diverse reasons.
Believe it or not, this wasn't meant to be a "religion" question.
Not about the Bible or any particular belief.
But really interesting replies so thanks all for the input.
Read all sorts about money, banking and atheism.
Was just a question about the (supposed) separation of Church and State with regards to the United States. I wasn't exactly sure who brought up God at the convention. Just that I heard it. Looks it was a group called Mothers Of The Movement. Parents / family members of the victims of gun crime.
As much as I feel for them losing a loved one, why were they allowed to use the convention to express their beliefs? Losing a loved one should not give anyone the right to push a religious view.
Hence the Church / State question, what with this being a political event.
They can use a convention to express their beliefs. As long as they don't make a law that forces others to accept a particular religious belief.
I never said all bankers are automatically Christians. Stop inferring. I just never thought you'd buy into the bollocks of "trickle down economics" and the big banking system. Banks DO take advantage of people, as do big businesses, and it is a little warped. I can't see Jesus buying into it all to be honest, and if Jesus genuinely would, well then he's not quite the character I thought he was.
But then again, the Vatican's never been short of a bob or two, loads of investments all over the place - including in banking, chemicals, etc - so perhaps I've got Jesus all wrong. Maybe Jesus would like to have a mansion, a yacht in St Tropez and buckets of champagne on chill. I guess I'm merely stating that out of all of the BS to be found from the Bible, the Moneylenders in the Church (someone should tell the Pope) and the metaphor of the Camel and the Needle were pretty good ones. But I guess they're just one of those "ignore it" verses from the Bible in Christianity.
Which begs the question - if the Church invests so heavily in the economy which is seemingly the backbone of the state - how can there be a separation?
I buy into trickle down capitalism because I've seen it work. Not perfectly of course, but it works. As opposed to, those like Bernie who think they can just take money from the rich and redistribute it, without a thought where the next batch will come from.
The Church isn't Jesus of course.
My point is I don't personally think that a person who works hard, is loyal and dependable, takes care of his family, gives back to society would necessarily have a hard time with an afterlife.
Jesus also said, Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's... So he likely understood the reality of life and would understand it today.
Kind of a bit too simplistic because you've just devalued billions of peoples employment worth with that criteria