I was thinking, if we were to raise interest rates to ten percent there would be more money being created each month, yes? This would be due to credit and then there would be also more money in the country. This could see the loans repaid through more rigorous means, forcing more foresight with loans, or, more repossession. But, why stop there? We could have interest rates of fifteen percent and then have even more money! They way I see it working is through the money being repaid being more than what was lent, and, that allows the banks to have even more money to lend out, yes? Then there is taxation, more going to the state will result in more being developed via infrastructure upgrades and developments and so forth, of course.
No more money would be created. Interest rates create no money. They are the cost of borrowing money. You have £100 and lend it to me at 10% per year interest. Your balance = -100 My balance = +100 I also owe you £10 a year until I pay it back. If you raise interest rates to 15% I now owe you £15 a year until I pay it back. It is however a competitive market so if you raise your interest rates to 15% I may borrow from someone cheaper. Lending and borrowing creates no money. It simply redistributes it. Places the same existing money in other peoples hands.
1) Fed raises interest rates to shrink money supply 2) interest is the price of money. when the price of something goes up less of it is produced and purchased. We call this the law of supply and demand
With money, there must be a good working obvious example to toy with? How about baking? That would be where you need something to make some product, and, then you sell it for more, and, you get more back to do the same with? As this is the basics of trade, it obviously has a place in monetary circles, yes? So, home economics is like banking, and, the more people borrow your ingredients to start their own businesses, the more you are owed - hell, maybe you could swap for recipes and baked goods coming back to you? Anyway, Banking is about taking something and through some sort of service getting more back. This is trade. If you were to trade at a market, you will see the market grow as people start to make more with less, and, then others come with something, something small maybe, and make something more for themselves. But, where does it all start? It starts with time, time to invest into something. If you take time out to invest into something you can sell, then maybe you will sell it - is it in demand? Can you sell it? If you cannot sell it, can someone else sell it for you? Is there room at the market for your service or goods or not? Once you have been dealt it, you can up your standard of living, and, then keep the rest to make investments with. Okay, honestly, today we inherit things from our elders and families, but when the world got going, people were sharpening saws and picks and stuff, okay? Today we enjoy the benefits of inheritance, and, with more people inheriting things, there will be more trade and further growth, obviously. So, the goals of those that 'want it to work,' should be for the delivery of something to those in need of getting more. If you spend your money on essentials, you will be left with nothing, but if you spare money for 'investments,' like tools or goods, then you can further yourself. This means that the best way to live is through investments, where you put something in to get more out, yes? How do you spot an investment? Scalped tickets and tools for sale later would suffice, but there must be something concrete. The exception to this I can think of is subsistence farming, where you 'self service.' The best investment today is luxuries for those that want them. Servicing those that want to feel special, through prostitution down to shoe shining, from delivering goods to passing on messages and cleaning, the best way to make it in the beginning is to leach off society and provide a service, as, there are lots of goods for sale, but you have none, do you? So, if you want to make money, and who doesn't, simply pick up something to recycle. This will be where you use the luxury of dismissal to give you and others more cash. This is the true leach of society, and, one that survives. Look at how much there is thrown away each day, my family goes through so much waste each day it is scary - there is more that enough waste to see many through - age of the lobster!
You don't need an investment to begin with. You need a job. For most of us work is the primary income source. We save some of our pay and over the years this builds an investment stake that hopefully grows so big it can be used as a self sustaining source. So we can retire and live off our investments.
When we look at the world around us from a state point of view, they need to observe what is worth something to others and not really worth something to the state, yes? This would include land strategies and licensing, of course? Would the state care if taxes kept rolling in off a casino that they license? Heck no! That would suite them fine, so, this would be an option, of course... But let's think bigger? What about sea side property? They could lower the price of all sea board property for about a month, and declare it will be doubled at the end of that month. This would leave them with a crash of investment, where they would sell out of lots of property, as much as the investors could get their hands on, especially where the climate is good, of course. ~ So, now you have two examples of where two things that cost the state nothing will bring in money, yes? If we were to look at water resources, the people would vote for a party that brought them water through a pipe, yes? This could then go to the private sector, where investors could gain favour with the party that they support if they were to 'fork out the money.' This is where one hand washes the other, of course, and everyone benefits. Or, we could look to the state of the currency in the reserve? This could be sold at a reduced rate, to investors, say they can buy one million dollars for nine hundred thousand dollars, and then the money stays in the country anyway usually, yes? This means, the state makes one hundred thousand dollars per deal, and, if the country is on the sea board, they spend it back onto the reduced real estate, granting the money through investment from the sea board immediately to the state too. This may look like a loss of two hundred thousand dollars or so, but, it is eight hundred thousand dollars that would be in someone else's account, yes?
you make less than no sense. Passing a law to tax personal income at 90% does not cost the state anything amd will bring in money?? So???????????????????
