$100 dollar bill. (I got this in an email)

reply to post by lcbjr1979


I love it. Brilliant.

... and so true.

reply to post by lcbjr1979


You forgot to mention the bill was also less valuable the second time around.

Well since a good, service, or cash(which was likely earned working) was provided on a loan basis there was production. In this case it sounds like there was a lot of production.

Originally posted by BlackStar99
Well since a good, service, or cash(which was likely earned working) was provided on a loan basis there was production. In this case it sounds like there was a lot of production.

I was going to say the exact same thing. Reading that I can point out tons of production in the story, from all parties.

To say there is no production as the OP does is confusing

reply to post by JessopJessopJessop


I did not say anything about production. I did not write the story, it was emailed to me all i am doing is sharing it.

reply to post by lcbjr1979

Sure. But other are also responding to the story.

Each person in the story had $100 dues as well as $100 receivables, so they had a networth of zero. So they have no reason to feel good after the transaction. They were free of their debt, but they were also free of what was owed to them.

It may impress someone not familiar with economics, but that is not how economic stimulus works, when it does.

Originally posted by BlackStar99
Well since a good, service, or cash(which was likely earned working) was provided on a loan basis there was production. In this case it sounds like there was a lot of production.

The production happened before the $100 bill appeared on the scene. The bill only allowed them making entries into their books, without them being any richer or poorer.

Loving it!

Proof that, as some have mentioned earlier, money is just an imaginary expansion of energy which is used as a source to enslave us all.

It really is that simple.

I'm seeing a different outcome, except for Texas Truth who also sees. When the $100 bill gets back on the counter, the proprietor loses what is owed to him . By placing the bill back on the counter it no longer pays the proprietor money owed by the prostitute. Even if the customer had rented a room, the proprietor would be out the fee for the room , because the $100 bill was already his given to him by the prostitute.

OP's story is what debt is all about, mostly an illusion imho

The only thing i see wrong with the story is the $100 was originally taken or borrowed with out asking.

Now even if the room wasn't rented , all involved were already compensated in a barter type situation. Having a receipt of payment in the form of the $100 dollar bill is where the evil comes in, because now that money HAD to be BORROWED from a BANK so now all are now indebted in interest to the bank for nothing other than the utilization of the $100 note.

reply to post by lcbjr1979


I think the exact post was put up a few weeks ago. I'm not sure what the topic was though. I'm certain it had to do with inflation and bailouts. I'm also pretty sure it was related to the OWS threads. I noticed it from the very first words

It all just sounds so good, the issue is they all have a one hundred dollar note to pass on yet a debt of thousands still unpaid.
and the bank has interest to earn on the money. People dont borrow from other people they go to banks, and where in all that does the tax man get his cut.
Clever little story but its just silly little story.
There is a justification in the bata system.

very clever...forget the stimulus package that how money on credit works period

this is awesome . .. .

gonna do something I rarely do. . .post this on facebook!!

excellent post.
its like what happened me last nite whilst playing poker
my son ran into the house in a panic 'dad come quick, theres 3 men kicking the crap out of granny'
i kept on playing cards. 'are'nt you going to help?' someone asked.
no i said, 3 should do it...

I don't get it? (sorry.. )

If..

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

...does that mean that the butcher sold his product at cost price?

I must be missing something...

Peace

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by BlackStar99
Well since a good, service, or cash(which was likely earned working) was provided on a loan basis there was production. In this case it sounds like there was a lot of production.

The production happened before the $100 bill appeared on the scene. The bill only allowed them making entries into their books, without them being any richer or poorer.

But you have to look at it from the Stock holders perspective.

Once you include the corporate world, economics start to get twisted.

reply to post by operation mindcrime

NO, just that the butcher got a pig from the farmer. Originally he did not pay the farmer, but the pig was worth $100.

The hotel dude simply bought $100 of pork chops from the butcher.
The butcher still has pork loins, head cheese, ham, and sausage for sale.

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by operation mindcrime

 

The butcher still has pork loins, head cheese, ham, and sausage for sale.

Which is now his "profit" wether he eats it himself or sells it, this is his profit!!

What am I missing??

Peace[