janKipo wrote:nasin mani li ilo taso: jan li kepeken e ona tawa ike la ona li ike. sama la pona. tawa pi nasin mani li mani mute. taso nasin ni li toki ala e ni: jan li kepeken e mani ni tawa seme.
ni li lon. ni li lon kin.
jan-ante wrote:mani li mama e mani sin.
ona li mama e mani kin.
mani li sama soweli unpa
li sama pipi ike kin.
mani li mama e mani sin. ni li lon. ni li pona ala li ike ala. ni li lon.
jan pali li pana e mani tawa jan pi tomo mani. tenpo li kama. jan pi tomo mani li pana e mani ni e mani sin tawa jan pali ni. mani pi jan pali li mama e mani sin pi jan pali. ni li ike ala ike?
janKipo wrote: kepeken pi nimi 'la' tu li ike ala tempo la on a li wile.
ni li ike ala tawa sina. ni li ike ala tawa mi. taso ken la ni li ike kin tawa jan ante
Because it is explicitly rejected (I think in the pije textbook)
could you please give the reference?
I would say "should" rather than "want to", but basically yes, that is what I take the DL to be saying (along with many other religious leaders of all sorts). And it sounds about right to me.
so, in summary, what is your message about Dalai to me? please, tp only
taso mi kama jo e mani tan tomo la mi kin moku e pali pi jan ni.
ni li lon. tan ni la seme li lon?
toki pona li toki ala tawa toki utala pi nasin mani.
ni li lon. toki pona li ilo taso
nasin mani li ilo taso:
ilo li unpa ala sama soweli unpa li moku ala sama pipi ike.
jan li kepeken e ona tawa ike la ona li ike. sama la pona. tawa pi nasin mani li mani mute. taso nasin ni li toki ala e ni: jan li kepeken e mani ni tawa seme.
taso jan mani li kepeken e mani tawa ike ni: ona li kama mute e mani. ken la jan li kepeken e mani tawa ijo pona. taso ona anu jan ante li kepeken e mani tawa ijo ike. ante la mani li kama ala mute.
jan Ote wrote: mani li mama e mani sin. ni li lon. ni li pona ala li ike ala. ni li lon.
ni li ike: mani li kama mute sama soweli unpa. kili pi jan pali li kama mute sama tenpo pi jan pali. kili pali li kama mute lili la mani li kama mute mute
jan pali li pana e mani tawa jan pi tomo mani. tenpo li kama. jan pi tomo mani li pana e mani ni e mani sin tawa jan pali ni. mani pi jan pali li mama e mani sin pi jan pali. ni li ike ala ike?
jan mani li pana ala e mani ale tawa jan pali. ona li mute e mani li kama jo e mani ni kin
toki pona li ike tawa ni: mi mute toki pi sona mani. jan pali li kama jo e mani tan pali sama. ona li pana e mani ni tawa tomo mani. tomo mani li pana e mani ni tawa jan esun. jan ni li esun e ijo tan jan ante kepeken mani ni lili, tenpo ni pini la jan esun li esun e ijo ni tawa jan ante ante kepeken mani mute. jan esun li pana e wan pi mani mute ni tawa jan pali tan ni: jan pali li pali tawa jan esun. jan esun li pana e wan ante tawa tomo mani tan. tomo ni li pana e mani tawa ona. jan esun li jo e wan pi mani mute tawa sama tan ni: pali ona li pali e mani tawa ali. nasin mani li pali tan nasin ni, ona li pali ala e ni la ona li ike.
janKipo wrote:toki pona li ike tawa ni: mi mute toki pi sona mani.
mi pilin ante
nasin mani li pali tan nasin ni, ona li pali ala e ni la ona li ike.
ona li pali e ni la ona li ike kin
tan li ni: nasin mani li kama mute e mani. wawa pi kama mute li sama soweli unpa. taso wawa pi kama mute pi kili pali li sama tenpo pi jan pali. tenpo li tawa la ante ni li kama suli. ni li ike tawa kulupu jan.
kili pali pi jan mani li mani taso. ona li kama mute sama soweli unpa. kili pali pi jan pali li kama mute sama tenpo ona. tan ni la jan mani li kama jo e kili pali ale kepeken nasin esun. ni li ike tawa jan pali li pona tawa jan mani.
I'm having trouble going on in tp. My point is just that, given capitalism (or some successful substitute), some measure of "money breeding more money" is necessary. There is not enough money to actually go around (we can print more, but then each bit is worth less). If you put a buck in the bank, the bank will loan ninety cents to someone else for some purpose. If you want your buck back before that person pays you back, the banks takes care of you using your remaining dime and a chunk from several other depositors. Meanwhile, that $.9 goes into producing a product, partly by paying the salary of a worker, who then goes and buys the product, giving the manufacturer the money to pay off his loan. So far, so good. This system is fraught already: if every depositor wants his money back, the bank can't pay it. The first few get paid in full, the next many get paid a percentage, the last many get zip (there are insurance schemes to prevent the last two from happening, but even they have limited resources and so, if all depositors in the insurance base want their money back, some will still get screwed). At the other end, if no one buys the product, the manufacturer has to lay off workers (who then can't put money into bank) and eventually can't pay off his loan. So, the bank has less money now to loan out and so fewer businesses can expand or even keep going and the bank makes less money, which speeds up the cycle. So far, this is a sort of Ponzi scheme, but a benign, even positively valuable one. Until the catastrophe (which Murphy's law -- and good statistics -- tell will occur).
Now, not all all businesses go to banks for money for their development. The alternative is to go directly to the people and offer them a "share" (governments do the same thing but call them "bonds" since they don't carry the same risks nor the same rights) in the company in return for some money. A share entitles you to a fraction of the company's profits and a vote at decision-making meetings, each proportional to the number of shares. Of course, it also put you at risk of losing the money you put, if the company folds (but not more, if the company has debts in access of assets). The bits of profit, dividends, are fairly piddly generally; it takes 20 years or more on average to recover your initial stake. But folks get antsy and want their money NOW, so they sell their shares to someone willing to buy, usually for more than they paid for them originally (so the seller makes a profit of at least the dividends he has already received) . What does the buyer receive? Maybe just the hope of an easier life, with the dividends coming in to supplement his other income. Maybe the satisfaction of having some say in the running of a company. But most likely, the hope that eventually (soon) he will be able to sell the stock for more than he paid for it and thus make a profit (note that stock dealers make a profit in selling him the stock and again in selling it for him -- he can't generally do this directly himself). Now, though the stock may sell for a large sum, none of this money goes to help the company directly (it may indirectly, if the company held back some stock and can use if for collateral on loans, etc.) At this point, then, money has come completely free from any solid base: a product, a piece of land, a man's labor. The value of a stock share is determined only by the willingness of others to pay for it. This may be related in some way to how well the company is doing, certainly need not be: some of the highest priced stocks now (and certainly in the 90s) are those of of companies which have yet to show even a profit, let alone a hug one (Amazon, Facebook) People who hold a lot of stock are said to be wealthy and can live a wealthy life-style by discrete stock selling and borrowing against collateral. They don't have a lot of cash free and clear. And if they tried to get it, their wealth would fade away like the smoke and mirrors it is. The first share sold might get full list price (less dealer's commission), the next would get less, and so on down -- and, if the news of someone selling in bulk got out, the resulting rush to sell would drop the prices farther and faster, possibly to the point where the company could no longer get loans to pay to operate and would go out of business, even if it were still as successful as before. A Ponzi scheme again.
Now stocks are a kind of debt: the company agrees to pay off the loan made in purchasing the stock from the company, as fast as it can -- although the payments continue long after the debt has been paid off and any reasonable interest as well ( I get a small check every quarter from some stock that has been in my family for nearly a hundred years). Well, if one kind of debt can be bought and sold, any kind can be, So our bank, after loaning out your ninety cents, sells that debt to a bigger group for a buck, say, thus getting its money back sooner but also making a dime. And the bigger group sell this debt (and a number of others) to a bigger group, getting its money back and making a profit. If enough of those debtors don't pay their debts, the same sort of collapse occurs, as the value of the paper decreases, thus reducing the groups ability to loan and forcing them to call in existing loans, which puts similar pressure on other groups, and so on down. Another Ponzi scheme. The first few get full value, the rest get less and less, down to nothing, And there is no insurance out here any more.
The problem is, as the Fuggers noted in the 13th century, as long as we stick to the cash supply and the physical objects, we cannot advance from the slightly above bare subsistence level. To send off a ship to a distant port takes more money than anyone has (you have to build the ship first and then man it and then get something that can be profitably traded), so we are stuck with the locally produced goods. But once you start loaning more money than you have, all sorts of things open up, and, as long as you can keep almost all the balls in the air, everybody's lot improves and civilization proceeds to the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution and whatever is happening now.
The trick is to find a way to get that free flow of credit over and above money without all the possibilities of disaster (and its inevitable occurrence). So far, all we have managed is to cut off some possible disaster and cut down on the profits from those disaster for the top fraction (and the dealers, who make a profit regardless of what happens -- the Muslim system does eliminate them, more or less). That is, we have a less dramatic Ponzi scheme, but no way out of the Ponziness of it all.
janKipo wrote:This system is fraught already: if every depositor wants his money back, the bank can't pay it.
Despite of the fact that the today's bank system in practice can be treated as it is "fraught", this doesn't result from the essential characteristics of the bank as such. While your comment is correct, it's not about banks in their primary and basic function:
Erminio Guidi has 100 florins and can give them someone the use of for a year. Niccolo Romano wants to improve his business and needs to obtain 90 florins for use for a year. But could be they don't know each other or don't trust each other enough.
Anyway, respected and trustworthy Signor Tommaso Peruzzi announces that he borrows money from people for a year, paying after a year 10 florins extra for every 100 borrowed. Also, he announces that he lends money to people for a year, demanding after a year 15 florins extra for every 100 lent.
Erminio lends his 100 florins to Signor Peruzzi for a year. Niccolo borrows 90 florins from Signor Peruzzi for a year. After a year, Signor Peruzzi will earn 15-10 = 5 florins for his service and risk. But what happens when Erminio goes to him and wants his money back just NOW, a month after he lent them? Nothing. No need to use Ponzi scheme, because Signor Peruzzi answers politely: "Signor Guidi, we made a deal. You lent me your money for a year, you knew you would have to wait a year for return and you have to wait. A deal is a deal."
So: the banking in its essentials is not based on pyramid scheme. Current accounts, deposits payed on demand are the source of troubles you point at. Plus investing on the stock market or similar non-banking activities of banks.
janKipo wrote:I'm having trouble going on in tp. My point is just that, given capitalism ...
i am diapointed twice again: (1) as you have troubling with tp, you switch to english, and (2) you use this forum for the political discussion in english. and jan Ote too.. but to me the english discussion is not that interesting.
what is surprising, is that the topic of jan lipakek about how good the czechs are recieved so many replies. it is one of the hottest topics in forum
