CDZ What have banks to do with Capitalism?

[320 Years of History]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

Do you still care for the OP's topic, or do you think that discussion has also already reached its determining end?

I don't know; I haven't given that any thought. For now, all I know is after having read your clarification (I appreciate the effort you showed by providing it) I didn't fully understand what the clarification meant, and given that and the relative unimportance of the my "initial" comment, I have decided I don't care whether I fully comprehend the initial response ("children") or the clarification. My life just won't be incomplete without my "getting it."

 

[Holos]

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

Do you still care for the OP's topic, or do you think that discussion has also already reached its determining end?

I don't know; I haven't given that any thought. For now, all I know is after having read your clarification (I appreciate the effort you showed by providing it) I didn't fully understand what the clarification meant, and given that and the relative unimportance of the my "initial" comment, I have decided I don't care whether I fully comprehend the initial response ("children") or the clarification. My life just won't be incomplete without my "getting it."

I'm glad to know, and I also fully understand your chosen retrieval from that specific piece of logic. It's also not my place to insist.

The initial intention of the thread, however, wasn't about individual people or personhood, but about national politics and economics.

Is it still of your interest to continue the thread on Capitalism?

 

[Mac1958]

Essentially, banks are to capitalism as motor oil is to an engine.

 

[Holos]

Essentially, banks are to capitalism as motor oil is to an engine.

How have you concluded so?
Could you source to references, or otherwise provide a detailed explanation with your own words?

It would be much appreciated.

 

[Mac1958]

Essentially, banks are to capitalism as motor oil is to an engine.

How have you concluded so?
Could you source to references, or otherwise provide a detailed explanation with your own words?

It would be much appreciated.

If the point of that post is not abundantly clear to you, I'm going to guess that trying to explain it will be a waste of time and effort.

Here, this should be very helpful for you:

The Basics of Banking | Pragmatic Capitalism
https://next.ft.com/content/63e4d792-f111-11df-bb17-00144feab49a
The Role of Commercial Banks in the Economy | Investopedia
The role of banks
What is the economic function of a bank?

No charge!
.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

Do you still care for the OP's topic, or do you think that discussion has also already reached its determining end?

I don't know; I haven't given that any thought. For now, all I know is after having read your clarification (I appreciate the effort you showed by providing it) I didn't fully understand what the clarification meant, and given that and the relative unimportance of the my "initial" comment, I have decided I don't care whether I fully comprehend the initial response ("children") or the clarification. My life just won't be incomplete without my "getting it."

I'm glad to know, and I also fully understand your chosen retrieval from that specific piece of logic. It's also not my place to insist.

The initial intention of the thread, however, wasn't about individual people or personhood, but about national politics and economics.

Is it still of your interest to continue the thread on Capitalism?

I don't have something new to say about the thread topic. I posted several references that address the question. Mac1958 posted some additional ones. Though the papers I linked aren't ones I wrote, if their content, or that in Mac1958 's linked content, answers the OP question, is there more that I need to say?

 

[Holos]

Essentially, banks are to capitalism as motor oil is to an engine.

How have you concluded so?
Could you source to references, or otherwise provide a detailed explanation with your own words?

It would be much appreciated.

If the point of that post is not abundantly clear to you, I'm going to guess that trying to explain it will be a waste of time and effort.

Here, this should be very helpful for you:

The Basics of Banking | Pragmatic Capitalism
History: Banks are at the heart of capitalism - FT.com
The Role of Commercial Banks in the Economy | Investopedia
The role of banks
What is the economic function of a bank?

No charge!
.

No charge, but also no oil left?
How does the engine work?

You seriously make your own posted thought to be a successive waste when further scrutiny is requested?

I thought we were going to perhaps reach the 22nd century with full electrical capability in our discussion, but it seems you are proposing we recede to before the 18th century industrial revolution.

 

[Holos]

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

Do you still care for the OP's topic, or do you think that discussion has also already reached its determining end?

I don't know; I haven't given that any thought. For now, all I know is after having read your clarification (I appreciate the effort you showed by providing it) I didn't fully understand what the clarification meant, and given that and the relative unimportance of the my "initial" comment, I have decided I don't care whether I fully comprehend the initial response ("children") or the clarification. My life just won't be incomplete without my "getting it."

I'm glad to know, and I also fully understand your chosen retrieval from that specific piece of logic. It's also not my place to insist.

The initial intention of the thread, however, wasn't about individual people or personhood, but about national politics and economics.

Is it still of your interest to continue the thread on Capitalism?

I don't have something new to say about the thread topic. I posted several references that address the question. Mac1958 posted some additional ones. Though the papers I linked aren't ones I wrote, if their content, or that in Mac1958 's linked content, answers the OP question, is there more that I need to say?

Why are you not reading those references then so you can add something new?

The OP wasn't a single question, it was a multi-leading proposal.

 

[Mac1958]

Essentially, banks are to capitalism as motor oil is to an engine.

How have you concluded so?
Could you source to references, or otherwise provide a detailed explanation with your own words?

It would be much appreciated.

If the point of that post is not abundantly clear to you, I'm going to guess that trying to explain it will be a waste of time and effort.

Here, this should be very helpful for you:

The Basics of Banking | Pragmatic Capitalism
History: Banks are at the heart of capitalism - FT.com
The Role of Commercial Banks in the Economy | Investopedia
The role of banks
What is the economic function of a bank?

No charge!
.

No charge, but also no oil left?
How does the engine work?

You seriously make your own posted thought to be a successive waste when further scrutiny is requested?

I thought we were going to perhaps reach the 22nd century with full electrical capability in our discussion, but it seems you are proposing we recede to before the 18th century industrial revolution.

My apologies.

I assumed that people reading my post had at least the most fundamental understanding of macroeconomics. It appears that you don't belong to that group.

Unfortunately, I don't visit this site to educate people on the basics.

A bit of advice: There is a great deal of information on the internet on elementary economics. There are many books on the topic, even textbooks, that you could easily access. Asking such elementary questions on a political message board most likely not yield you a balanced, objective, comprehensive education on any topic. That's not why people are there.
.

 

[Holos]

Unfortunately, I don't visit this site to educate people on the basics.

[...]

Asking such elementary questions on a political message board most likely not yield you a balanced, objective, comprehensive education on any topic. That's not why people are there.

Assumptions and advises put aside, why are you here?

Do you realize this is the Clean Debate Zone?

Do you realize Debates have the main purpose of educating, and that a prerequisite qualification for debating successfully is being able to promptly and succinctly convey basic information when required?

 

[Mac1958]

Unfortunately, I don't visit this site to educate people on the basics.

[...]

Asking such elementary questions on a political message board most likely not yield you a balanced, objective, comprehensive education on any topic. That's not why people are there.

Assumptions and advises put aside, why are you here?

Do you realize this is the Clean Debate Zone?

Do you realize Debates have the main purpose of educating, and that a prerequisite qualification for debating successfully is being able to promptly and succinctly convey basic information when required?

I assume a certain level of knowledge when discussing an issue with someone.

If they don't meet that level, I'm not inclined to continue the conversation.

Also, the main purpose of debate is not to educate, a debate is usually a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers/writers. In most debates, a fundamental level of knowledge is also assumed.
.

 

[Holos]

Unfortunately, I don't visit this site to educate people on the basics.

[...]

Asking such elementary questions on a political message board most likely not yield you a balanced, objective, comprehensive education on any topic. That's not why people are there.

Assumptions and advises put aside, why are you here?

Do you realize this is the Clean Debate Zone?

Do you realize Debates have the main purpose of educating, and that a prerequisite qualification for debating successfully is being able to promptly and succinctly convey basic information when required?

I assume a certain level of knowledge when discussing an issue with someone.

If they don't meet that level, I'm not inclined to continue the conversation.

Also, the main purpose of debate is not to educate, a debate is usually a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers/writers. In most debates, a fundamental level of knowledge is also assumed.
.

You are wrong about the purpose of a debate, if you would know any global, multinational political history. Debates are not pin and board games as you so propose, contrasted by victory and defeat. Debates are the very processes through which complex states and structured nations have been formed, established and developed to provide invariably to those who will also provide.

 

[320 Years of History]

Also, the main purpose of debate is not to educate, a debate is usually a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers/writers. In most debates, a fundamental level of knowledge is also assumed.

I have to agree with this.

Unfortunately, as with any assumption, it may become apparent that the assumption is not borne out.

 

[Mac1958]

Also, the main purpose of debate is not to educate, a debate is usually a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers/writers. In most debates, a fundamental level of knowledge is also assumed.

I have to agree with this.

Unfortunately, as with any assumption, it may become apparent that the assumption is not borne out.

Yep, and that's usually when I exit the conversation..


.