DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:If Positive Money really think that a bank could operate without outside funding
They don't seem to think this, but seem to be holding two contrary positions at once:http://positivemoney.org/2012/07/if-banks-can-create-money-how-come-northern-rock-went-bust/
dms wrote:I guess the restriction is whether or not the borrower has the ability to repay. Under the PM model of banking the bank only has to ensure their assets (the loan agreements) match their liabilities (deposits in accounts). If they start issuing dodgy loans to people and they get defaulted on then they are at risk at not being able to cover people wanting to withdraw their money.I agree with the description. But don't see how this squares with the claim of loans being created "out of nothing".
dms wrote:As I understand your argument, you're saying the bank has to ensure it has the money to cover a loan the moment it leaves the bank. That's where the difference is, I think.No, I don't think that is what ALB was saying. None of this is made any clearer by the modern more looser definition of "money". If I'm correct I think the actual clearing between commercial banks and the central banks happens at the end of the business day.Loans aren't made "out of nothing" but out of the debtor's promise to pay. The are a claim to a *future* income stream.I don't see how positive money can say both things at once. If loans are made out of nothing then there would be no restriction on when they could be issued.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The EU is about being living in a larger prison cell, making the jail that holds us a bit bigger.And no jailbreak is going to happen anytime soon. So I think a bigger jail is still a reform that is worth wanting.Though I appreciate that an in / out referendum does not say anything about what the conditions of the staying or leaving would be.
Not that it has anything to do with ADM, but yes the dormant twitter account @worldsocialism has been offered to a companion party since the World Socialist Movement is not just the SPGB.
I've come back to my senses and realised that we spent ages going around in circles with this years ago. I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you again.FWIW in the talk in the original post I think it is John Searle who is right, but he can't really be classified under your two categories – I don't think anyone really can…
LBird wrote:But YMS's post is in support of 'materialism'."materialism" is a kind of "naturalism".
LBird wrote:So, we all stop calling Marx a 'materialist', and all start calling him a 'naturalist'…He was both.But it is your "idealism-materialism" that is nonsensical.FIN.
The ability to settle and sell my labour power in countries other than the UK is, to me at least, a reform worth wanting.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If this is not a terrorist attack, what is?That's not a terrorist attack. Or even an attack.
OK fine, I have no problems using the term "naturalism". I think everything of use has been summed up in YMS's post a couple above this one.
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:But what is truth?I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.
This looks more like a description of direct and indirect realism than an explanation of what "truth" is. It doesn't answer the questions: What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?
LBird wrote:We could choose another term entirely, which doesn't employ either 'materialism' or 'idealism' (Marx suggested 'humanism' or 'naturalism')Citation needed.
LBird wrote:1. 'Truth' (note capital letter for emphasis, also 'The Truth') is a reflection of 'reality', 'out there', 'external world', as it is;2. 'truth' (note lower case for de-emphasis, also 'truths') is a relationship between 'the observer' and 'out there', etc. as it is produced.But what is truth? What kind of things can be true and what is the criteria for them being so?If I say "the cat is on the mat" what conditions need to be met for the sentence to be true?
