You are choosing the most extreme and unlikely example.
You are arguing, just to argue.
No, I chose an example that would be clear. People generally do not want money just to have, they want it to spend. Even in cases where people build up cash savings it is in anticipation of spending the money later. If you have some additional argument as to why people want money for itself, please share. If not, then the "they don't even get to keep the loan money!" argument doesn't do much work for you.
So, you do know what I'm talking about. Why are you pretending not to?
As I said in my previous post your assessment appears to me to be inaccurate. I understand what you are saying but I disagree and you have not presented any arguments that change my mind.
I'm sorry to tell you that the Central Bank concept was meant as a way to keep involuntary servitude.
But why are you now trying to convince me it was anything other than that?
If you don't believe me, that's fine, I'm only concerned with the future.
That's a strong claim, and it would be great if you presented any evidence for it. I don't much care whether or not you believe this, nor am I trying to convince you that you are wrong. I am asking you for evidence as to why you believe this at all, let alone why you believe it so strongly.
Stop treating economics like a religion.
Surely you're joking. I mean, you are trolling me with this, right? You have presented a series of absolute convictions, refused to provide any evidence for any of them, refused to accept the possibility that you could even maybe potentially be wrong on any point. All that I have done is disagree with your analysis and ask your for some of the evidence that has so thoroughly convinced you. One of those sounds more like a religion, especially in the derogatory sense that you used the word, than the other.
So, you are arguing just to argue.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to get more information about how you formed this belief and why you believe it so strongly. That you believe it is clear, as is how strongly you believe it.
You have been given enough to confirm or deny the concept, yet I can tell you're not willing to theorize it.
If the information I have gotten from you in this thread is enough to accept or reject your conclusion then I have no choice but to reject it. As before, more evidence and arguments might change my mind but you clearly are either not interested in providing or are unable to provide those. Why do you think I haven't considered what you've posted here? Is it only because I still disagree?
I am not the only one who has had this epiphany. And it is no big secret.
I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Most people, by your own description, disagree with the position you've put forth here. Your efforts to get people to agree with you don't seem to be very successful from what you've said here. You have expressed frustration that, after talking with people about this, they don't agree with you and asked why it's so hard, etc. etc.
There are three relevant possibilities for this: 1. You are right, and others are unable see it; 2. You are right, and others could see it, but your explanations and arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate your correctness; 3. You are wrong. It is striking to me that you are so certain that it's (1), and could not conceivably be (2).
Are you really that certain, of your position and the strength and completeness of the reasoning that got you there?
Well I guess that's it then. I wish you would have shared more of the argumentation that produced this certainty, or that you were willing to demonstrate that certainty by engaging with critiques, but that's not where we've ended up. At this point I doubt that anything like that will happen-- you've either emptied your quiver, or you have no interest in discussion or sharpening your arguments. May all your decisions be so clear, I guess.