bble: If I'd been writing the original article and wanted to use a food example just after discussing toilet paper, I probably wouldn't have chosen chocolate mousse for the example.
Time for a reprint on fractional reserve crime
Reprinting this AGAIN. It's an important point because you get what you measure. When your measuring tool claims destruction is growth, you're always going to work toward destruction.
= = = = =
Basic problem: When money creation happens automatically at the moment of making a LOAN, people who are attempting to run their lives and businesses by thrift, without borrowing, are completely ignored. We don't count as part of the economy.
The money supply EXPLICITLY EXCLUDES REAL VALUE.
REAL VALUE comes from REAL LABOR. Turning raw materials and components into a useful product, or cultivating crops and livestock, or arranging and advertising products for easier purchase.
Money creation at the point of lending doesn't even begin to recognize any of these activities.
A business that makes or sells things WITHOUT BORROWING FIRST is not recognized as creating value.
In the Western system, EVERY loan, whether it goes toward real production or gambling or stock manipulation, is recognized as creating value.
The current system treats DESTROYED VALUE as an increase, and completely ignores CREATED VALUE. Perfectly backwards.
Before 1975 the distinction didn't matter quite as much, because many loans went directly toward
creating value. Building new factories, improving productivity, redecorating a store. Now that the vast majority of loans are strictly criminal, serving to MURDER real business and expand the already infinite fake "wealth" of the Tribe, the distinction matters.
The alternatives are Sharia and Soviet.
Sharia, when applied properly, should create money exactly when value increases. Unfortunately there is no proper Sharia in the current Muslim world. According to this article, modern sharia banks don't create money differently, but do try to prohibit loans that serve speculation. Might achieve the same goal, but doesn't solve the basic problem.
Unsurprisingly, the Soviet system AS ACTUALLY APPLIED got it right. From this clearly written article:
First, as explained below, [Gosbank] had no discretion over the quantity of money. Its money-creation activity like its credit activity was entirely passive, arising as a byproduct of the production plan.
When a farm delivered its milk output, it would obtain a document from the cheese factory verifying that the latter had received its milk input. The document was then turned over to Gosbank, which credited the farm's account according to the value of the milk delivered, and debited the cheese factory's account by the same value.
Likewise, after the cheese was produced and shipped to the State food store, the cheese factory obtained a document verifying its delivery of cheese. Again, the document was turned over to Gosbank, which this time credited the cheese factory's account and debited the store's account. Finally, when households purchased the cheese with cash, the State store deposited its cash receipts with Gosbank and was given a credit of equal value.
With this simple example, we can see how every transfer of physical output from one location to another, and every bit of value added in production, was mirrored by an associated financial transfer through Gosbank.
I don't know if Marx designed it this way, but this was the reality.
Continued and expanded here.
Why did you even think it?Brit Medical Journal reports on a large and well-constructed experiment to see if weightlifting would help with Alzheimers.
Results were strongly negative and DEADLY. The old folks who lifted weights lost mental ability faster, and suffered more falls and heart attacks than the non-lifting control group.
Twenty five adverse events occurred (eight were possibly related, nine probably related, and eight definitely related) and four serious related adverse events (one hospital admission for exercise induced angina, two injurious falls, and one case of substantially worseni