Quote from: Opaopajr;620010I think I recommended the book "Debt: the first 5000 years" here before. It's enlightening! There's also interviews with the author out there. Check CSPAN Book TV or something (god, I love Book TV! I'm such a nerd!).

Sounds interesting, I'll definitely look that one up. Are you familiar with the documentary the Money Masters from the 90s? That one really altered my entire view of the economy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620019Only if one were accept a debt-based economy as the best way to conduct commerce in society. I don't follow that viewpoint myself, personally. I still see money in general as a giant game of make-pretend that every adult in the world has been suckered into playing.

OK, but without debt financing, where does the money to develop come from? Frx, I'm currently severely potless, but have two RPGs in development, along with ideas for several more that I can't guarantee would make money but would almost certainly make some, and would I'm sure re-pay the investment, plus they would benefit society, because there would more choice of games out there.

Think of money-lending as investment (which it is in a way), and you have a solution to the problem that producers like me face. Of course, unlike the Mediaeval usurers, there has to be some investigation and ascertaining of the producer's ability to produce, and their ability to pay back the investment. Obviously, a comparison should be made between 'pure' money-lending (i.e. 'Sure I'll lend you the money, I don't care how you get it back but if you don't I'll break your legs') and modern financial instruments, but, as I say, to develop you need to get the money from somewhere. If not debt, then where?

Quote from: catty_big;620023Think of money-lending as investment (which it is in a way), and you have a solution to the problem that producers like me face. Of course, unlike the Mediaeval usurers, there has to be some investigation and ascertaining of the producer's ability to produce, and their ability to pay back the investment. Obviously, a comparison should be made between 'pure' money-lending (i.e. 'Sure I'll lend you the money, I don't care how you get it back but if you don't I'll break your legs') and modern financial instruments, but, as I say, to develop you need to get the money from somewhere. If not debt, then where?

If we assume the use of money, then one can simply point to pre-Revolutionary America where States printed their own money. Its not debt-based, as with the current case of the US treasury which gets its money via loans on nonexistent gold from the Federal Reserve ( a misleading name, as its not federal, but in fact a private banking corporation). This is the trick to money: anything can be used, without a limited supply, as long as everyone agrees to use it as money. For 700 years Britain used a very effective form of money that was nothing more than sticks split in half. The only reason to charge interest would then be as an incitement for someone to lend. But there are plenty of other options.

Strongly recommend reading the book. Here's a quick summary of its argument:

Apparently we often think of debt as a recent (and wholly evil) creation, whereas it is the bedrock upon which notions of markets and trade depend. Without a military force being paid to define the regional power boundaries -- and the subsequent trade within it to pay the military force -- the common peace of regional valuation is not possible. You need a baseline evaluation created by fiat, and force receiving guaranteed debt by the very same fiat is that baseline.

Further, debt does not equal interest/usury. You can owe someone money, but not have interest accrue. Just like another misconception, capitalism doesn't equal economy and trade. There's a lot of modern conflation with the past's plethora of abstract social solutions.

Anyhoo, let's go back to chaotic evil!

Quote from: TristramEvans;620026( a misleading name, as its not federal, but in fact a private banking corporation).

This is not exactly true. The Federal Reserve System is not a corporation. It actually has a unique structure that is a mixture of both public and private, is both part of the government and independent of it. The idea that it's a privately held corporation is a misrepresentation claimed by conspiracy theorists who don't understand how the Federal Reserve System works.

It's a quasi-governmental consortium of primary banks, at best.

However its inception and hold of private power on public policy does lend partial credence to the conspiracy theorists' argument. Just because some people have kooky, all-powerful conspiracies doesn't mean the institutional framework, and some actors behind its inception, isn't detrimental. To maintain that it still is actively detrimental with unsavory actors within, especially after recent years, is not a wholly dismissible argument.

One mere example in the last year alone? Its oblique involvement in the LIBOR scandal.

And now, we're gravitating towards Lawful Evil, and that's tragically not what this topic is about.

Quote from: Omnifray;616661I don't think roleplayers should ever be encouraged to roleplay purely psychopathic evil characters.

By "psychopathic" I mean amoral:- without conscience. Characters that have excessively shallow emotional affect.

I never played a game between the ages of 12 and 25 that wasn't evil. Despite my feelings. Even as a GM, the players would always choose to play evil fucking characters.

Quote from: Opaopajr;620145Anyhoo, let's go back to chaotic evil!

In a minute. First,

Quote from: TristramEvans;620026If we assume the use of money, then one can simply point to pre-Revolutionary America where States printed their own money. This is the trick to money: anything can be used, without a limited supply, as long as everyone agrees to use it as money.

I think there’s a confusion between debt- I lend you some money, and you pay me back either whenever or according to an agreed schedule- and money-lending/usury- whereby I lend you money and charge you interest on the loan. If we’re simply talking about debt then it doesn’t matter who prints the money, in fact, as you point out, we don’t need to talk about money at all, it could be any resource that I have and am willing to part with some of temporarily, and that you do not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;610029For 700 years Britain used a very effective form of money that was nothing more than sticks split in half.

Ok but during that period did anyone need a loan to buy a large and/or complex and therefore expensive item of equipment (car, kitchen unit etc.), or to publish a book or movie or buy a three-bedroomed house? If I’ve got the money to enable you to do that and you haven’t and I’m prepared to lend it to you, that constitutes a service and something to which I can attach a monetary value, i.e. interest. And here I think we need further to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable rates of interest, or usury, which I think was the Church’s point. Another example of this principle, taken from a slightly different area of business, is when shops multiply their prices to exorbitant levels during a shortage.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620026But hang on, I also said

Quote from: TristramEvans;620026The only reason to charge interest would then be as an incitement for someone to lend. But there are plenty of other options.

Yes, I’ll get to that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;620026The only reason to charge interest would then be as an incitement for someone to lend. But there are plenty of other options.

What are they then?

Quote from: Opaopajr;620322And now we're gravitating towards Lawful Evil, and that's tragically not what this topic is about.

Aha, therein lies a sequel game, Lawful Evil, about Wall Street/Canary Wharf traders/bankers who are conflicted between their selfish need to make as money as possible within the rules (obviously you don’t need to play D&D to know that plenty of evil is possible whilst following the rules) and their altruistic impulse (conscience or whatever) to play fair and not be a Burnsesque shitbag.

            Quote:
         Originally Posted by C Montgomery Burns
         How dare you! Smithers, release the hounds.

...Back to chaotic evil.