What "most people" do isn't necessarily the wisest thing to do. Even doing what most financial advisors say is not necessarily the best.
A house is a reasonably good savings account - it's real actual physical wealth. You can sleep there and grow food there and store other belongings there, regardless of market vagaries.
A savings account in a fractional reserve bank is not worth the paper it's printed on.
A fractional reserve bank has maybe 10% of their deposits backed by their "reserve", but that money is not in their vault, it's in their own savings account at their own bank (the "Federal Reserve").
And where does the "Federal Reserve" keep it's reserves? A little place called "/dev/null".
Being massively indebted to China is a good idea because:
1) China's "vested interest in the continued success, and survival, of our country" is an important part of our national security strategy
2) Alexander Hamilton believed that the country should be in debt (and that his friends should become very rich in the process). Founding father he was, of massive national debt, corporate welfare, protectionist markets, corporate control of the government and government control of the people.
It's much easier than that, and that is why this is huge news.
Let this bacteria eat the lignin, and then the carbohydrates are exposed. Toss in some yeast and you get alcohol. From wood. Or dandelions. Or grass clippings. Or any cellulose at all.
> You mean like when the Spanish looted S.America's gold they doubled the gold reserves of Europe.
Exactly, that did inflate their money supply, and once it all worked its way into their economy it would have halved the gold's purchasing power.
> Money always has, and will always be, founded on an > intangible commodity called "trust"
Citation needed. But you won't find it, because you're absolutely wrong.
We started out bartering tangible commodities, no trust required. Then in time we standardized on certain ones, still no trust required.
"Trust" didn't come into the picture until paper did, and even then it was more because of Legal Tender laws imposed on the market than out of "trust".
If the supermarket cashier won't take gold it's for practical market reasons, not because the gold has failed to earn her trust.
You have the Constitution backwards. The original intent was not to give rights to citizens, but to impose responsibilities and limitations on government.
The Bill of Rights was added afterwards, to placate the fears some States had that a strong central government could take on a life of its own and start thinking it was the master instead of the servant.
Because the technical definition of "inflation" is expansion of the money supply.
What most people call inflation now is really just a symptom. Rising prices come from weakened purchasing power which comes from the increase in supply.
When people traded a tangible commodity, the supply would inflate as more of that commodity was produced, and deflate as the commodity was consumed or stockpiled.
The size of the money supply was dynamic, but changes tended to be modest and went both up and down.
ps - My original post said nothing of "the gold standard". A "standard" is not a tangible commodity. Gold is. Government-issued notes backed by government-issued promises is not.
> standard of living will increase faster than if we trust to the free market. I think you mean it will increase faster when we trust to the free market. Because fractional reserve banking is not a free market, it's a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
> if govt creates debt-free money Letting the market choose a tangible commodity for a currency seems far more sound than having the gov't inflate an unbacked money supply at its own discretion.
All my post says is that the poor will starve and later the previous equilibrium will be restored. How you derived the ratio of poor to general population from that, I couldn't begin to guess.
But if you'd like real numbers, the USDA says:
Nearly 16 percent of households with children were food insecure sometime during [2009], including 8.3 percent in which children were food insecure and 0.8 percent in which one or more children experienced very low food security - the most severe food-insecure condition measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Numerous studies suggest that children in food-insecure households have higher risks of health and development problems
> the argument is pointless. SCOTUS decisions are less final than you think. They've been wrong before, they've reversed precedent before.
Here basically the SCOTUS decision was that this was indeed a 4th amendment "intrusion" but checkpoints are not *unreasonable* if the state's "compelling interest." outweighs the "inconvenience" to the motorist.
SCOTUS eviscerated that amendment. Government stopped weighing their intrusions against our inconveniences long ago, and SCOTUS just moves the bar to match.
> apps which have no purpose other than letting > people drink-drive
That these checkpoints are called "DUI checkpoints" in no way suggests that: 1) Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution 2) There is no reason for non-drunks to avoid them 3) That banning products in high demand will do anything but create a black market for them.
If you're not a fan of censorship generally, I'd expect you to be a little more skeptical and analytical, a little less "I don't care if the authorities grope everybody's underpants because I've got nothing to hide".
REQUIRED, huh? That may be, but who could and would enforce that?
Numerous SCOTUS rulings indicate the Constitution can be safely ignored by the Government. Worse thing that happens is SCOTUS says Congress needs to make the infringing activity legal, which they promptly do.
Agreed. If they don't want to prosecute them, don't make them criminals. The worst "laws" are the ones that are not enforced except at the government's whim.
You said harvesting rainwater from the sea is easier than drilling for oil. Probably it's not, since transporting it requires drilling for oil.
Or it requires deploying your "freely available" solar or wave-powered generators, which the market currently finds more difficult than drilling for oil..
But I hope you're right about this "Universal prosperity" through non-laziness, ocean-sized rainwater collectors, free energy. and disempowered economists. Let me know how I can help.
I absolutely agree, but the problem is a new user might not feel which experiments are harmless. They don't know if the wrong click will do something they don't want, nor whether they'll be able to figure out how to undo it or even if it can be undone. The whole computers/internet is magic to many people. They don't know if a misguided click will cost their privacy or void their warranty or ruin their hardware or break the internets. So they're left frustrated and stressed and cursing at their computer for being so unhelpful and at themselves for being so ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
What "most people" do isn't necessarily the wisest thing to do. Even doing what most financial advisors say is not necessarily the best.
A house is a reasonably good savings account - it's real actual physical wealth. You can sleep there and grow food there and store other belongings there, regardless of market vagaries.
A savings account in a fractional reserve bank is not worth the paper it's printed on.
A fractional reserve bank has maybe 10% of their deposits backed by their "reserve", but that money is not in their vault, it's in their own savings account at their own bank (the "Federal Reserve").
And where does the "Federal Reserve" keep it's reserves? A little place called "/dev/null".
Even if gov't means well, even if this would make their job easier, even if gov't-regulated death is part of God's eternal plan...
the Government still lacks the constitutional authority to tell me whether or not I may choose when to die.
> if there were more of a process than just filling out some forms
Government has no constitutional authority to tell people when they can or can't die.
So let me get this straight.
Being massively indebted to China is a good idea because:
1) China's "vested interest in the continued success, and survival, of our country" is an important part of our national security strategy
2) Alexander Hamilton believed that the country should be in debt (and that his friends should become very rich in the process). Founding father he was, of massive national debt, corporate welfare, protectionist markets, corporate control of the government and government control of the people.
Where do you buy your Kool-Aid?
It's much easier than that, and that is why this is huge news.
Let this bacteria eat the lignin, and then the carbohydrates are exposed. Toss in some yeast and you get alcohol. From wood. Or dandelions. Or grass clippings. Or any cellulose at all.
This could be the end of dependency on oil.
> You mean like when the Spanish looted S.America's gold they doubled the gold reserves of Europe.
Exactly, that did inflate their money supply, and once it all worked its way into their economy it would have halved the gold's purchasing power.
> Money always has, and will always be, founded on an
> intangible commodity called "trust"
Citation needed. But you won't find it, because you're absolutely wrong.
We started out bartering tangible commodities, no trust required. Then in time we standardized on certain ones, still no trust required.
"Trust" didn't come into the picture until paper did, and even then it was more because of Legal Tender laws imposed on the market than out of "trust".
If the supermarket cashier won't take gold it's for practical market reasons, not because the gold has failed to earn her trust.
You have the Constitution backwards. The original intent was not to give rights to citizens, but to impose responsibilities and limitations on government.
The Bill of Rights was added afterwards, to placate the fears some States had that a strong central government could take on a life of its own and start thinking it was the master instead of the servant.
Because the technical definition of "inflation" is expansion of the money supply.
What most people call inflation now is really just a symptom. Rising prices come from weakened purchasing power which comes from the increase in supply.
When people traded a tangible commodity, the supply would inflate as more of that commodity was produced, and deflate as the commodity was consumed or stockpiled.
The size of the money supply was dynamic, but changes tended to be modest and went both up and down.
ps - My original post said nothing of "the gold standard". A "standard" is not a tangible commodity. Gold is. Government-issued notes backed by government-issued promises is not.
I totally agree with the sentiment.
> standard of living will increase faster than if we trust to the free market.
I think you mean it will increase faster when we trust to the free market. Because fractional reserve banking is not a free market, it's a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
> if govt creates debt-free money
Letting the market choose a tangible commodity for a currency seems far more sound than having the gov't inflate an unbacked money supply at its own discretion.
The reason most of us are not free to "jump from field to field" is because we have debts and dependents.
So young'uns, you have choices. Be a caregiver, be a debtor, be a polymath. Pick no more than two.
All my post says is that the poor will starve and later the previous equilibrium will be restored. How you derived the ratio of poor to general population from that, I couldn't begin to guess.
But if you'd like real numbers, the USDA says:
Nearly 16 percent of households with children were food insecure sometime during [2009], including 8.3 percent in which children were food insecure and 0.8 percent in which one or more children experienced very low food security - the most severe food-insecure condition measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Numerous studies suggest that children in food-insecure households have higher risks of health and development problems
> the argument is pointless.
SCOTUS decisions are less final than you think. They've been wrong before, they've reversed precedent before.
Here basically the SCOTUS decision was that this was indeed a 4th amendment "intrusion" but checkpoints are not *unreasonable* if the state's "compelling interest." outweighs the "inconvenience" to the motorist.
SCOTUS eviscerated that amendment. Government stopped weighing their intrusions against our inconveniences long ago, and SCOTUS just moves the bar to match.
I'm not mocking your choice, I'm condemning it.
> apps which have no purpose other than letting
> people drink-drive
That these checkpoints are called "DUI checkpoints" in no way suggests that:
1) Government checkpoints are authorized by the Constitution
2) There is no reason for non-drunks to avoid them
3) That banning products in high demand will do anything but create a black market for them.
If you're not a fan of censorship generally, I'd expect you to be a little more skeptical and analytical, a little less "I don't care if the authorities grope everybody's underpants because I've got nothing to hide".
REQUIRED, huh? That may be, but who could and would enforce that?
Numerous SCOTUS rulings indicate the Constitution can be safely ignored by the Government. Worse thing that happens is SCOTUS says Congress needs to make the infringing activity legal, which they promptly do.
> What would happen ... were the US alone to reduce its
> consumption per capita to that of India or China?
The poor would starve to death, and with the lowered population the per capita consumption would return to its original level.
Your first paragraph should tell your second paragraph not to undermine his arguments. Or vice versa.
> all they have to do is produce them
Or import them, like the United States does. From places like China and India, for example.
Nice word play.
But if somebody found God, why would they want to go to a church?. That's like resolving Einstein's Unification theory, then becoming an accountant.
"Your honor, it was only in self-defense that I tracked my runaway bride to Michigan and murdered her there."
Yes, you can claim that.
Agreed. If they don't want to prosecute them, don't make them criminals. The worst "laws" are the ones that are not enforced except at the government's whim.
You said harvesting rainwater from the sea is easier than drilling for oil. Probably it's not, since transporting it requires drilling for oil.
Or it requires deploying your "freely available" solar or wave-powered generators, which the market currently finds more difficult than drilling for oil..
But I hope you're right about this "Universal prosperity" through non-laziness, ocean-sized rainwater collectors, free energy. and disempowered economists. Let me know how I can help.
> The only issue is catching it and transporting it
> Should be easier...than drilling for oil, gas, etc
How do you intend to transport this water from the sea to the people without using energy?
I absolutely agree, but the problem is a new user might not feel which experiments are harmless. They don't know if the wrong click will do something they don't want, nor whether they'll be able to figure out how to undo it or even if it can be undone. The whole computers/internet is magic to many people. They don't know if a misguided click will cost their privacy or void their warranty or ruin their hardware or break the internets. So they're left frustrated and stressed and cursing at their computer for being so unhelpful and at themselves for being so ignorant.