What if the checks are only taking money from the Fed, which creates it out of thin air anyway, and is required to return all interest on T-bills to the Treasury? No harm.
Lincoln realized that government's greatest potential lay in its ability to create money, and created over $400 million greenbacks to raise revenue without increasing taxes or borrowing it.. The Greenback Party of the 1870s, made up mostly of poor farmers who were being hurt by the deflation of trying to take those greenbacks out of circulation and go back on the gold standard, were ahead of their time in recognizing that government can and should create money to help individuals.
Principles that were unknown to Simon Newcombe and Lord Kelvin, both of whom predicted machines heavier than air would not fly for a very long time before the Wright brothers did it within a few years?
The interesting thing is that Couder's experiments with silicon walkers that replicate on a macroscopic scale the two-slit experiment require an "ether" substrate. So maybe the ether does exist after all.
According to economists, money is a medium of exchange. Douglas argued that this may have once been the case when the majority of wealth was produced by individuals who subsequently exchanged it with each other. But in modern economies, division of labour splits production into multiple processes, and wealth is produced by people working in association with each other. For instance, an automobile worker does not produce any wealth (i.e., the automobile) by himself, but only in conjunction with other auto workers, the producers of roads, gasoline, insurance, etc. In this view, wealth is a pool upon which people can draw, and money becomes a ticketing system. The efficiency gained by individuals cooperating in the productive process was coined by Douglas as the “unearned increment of association” – historic accumulations of which constitute what Douglas called the cultural heritage. The means of drawing upon this pool is money distributed by the banking system.
Why should an increase in the money supply devalue the dollar in my pocket? If today there are X amount of dollars, and tomorrow there are 2*X dollars, why do prices have to rise?
Inflation is psychological, not a physical necessity. If a shopkeeper decides to raise prices because there is more money, that's a choice, not a necessary consequence. The choice is basically saying "I want certain people not to be able to afford what I'm selling, so I'll raise prices until they can't."
The way to fight the psychology of inflation is through indexing. Make it seamless and automatic, and use some sort of trick like Brazil used with the Real (see http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...). Since money can be stored on cards, no wheelbarrows full of paper are necessary. It can all be handled behind the scenes so that people aren't even aware of inflation.
Eventually, those raising prices will realize they have to get attention some other way than by trying to create an artificial scarcity.
Shadow banking gets around pesky reserve requirements, so that hundreds of trillions can be created without regard to amounts of reserves kept at the Fed.
That's not really what happened. The market panicked, and groupthink took over, causing an emotion-based drop in the value of mortgage-backed assets that was far out of proportion to the actual losses from defaults alone. First, the market inflated the value of mortgages many times by creating "risk-free" instruments; then they deflated those assets many times more than the actual dollar value of the mortgage defaults, out of pure irrational fear.
The Fed had to step in to provide liquidity because the market was in a panic.
Basically, the Fed should keep interest rates low and loan directly to individuals. Also to state governments and cities like Detroit. Give them the same deal they give banks. Let the banks sit on their trillions if they want, the Fed can make the markets bankers are too scared to these days.
Re:Economically Inefficient (Score:2) by JMZero (449047) Alter Relationship on Sunday February 16, 2014 @10:21PM (#46263797)
It's kind of moot now that rental stores are pretty rare - but this actually isn't true. Under first sale doctrine in the US, you're allowed to rent out a DVD you own. If this wasn't true, rental places may never have taken off, as the studios would have preferred only to sell. They tried various license garbage to hinder renting, but it never held.
The real problem is the artificial scarcity of money, which banks create out of thin air, and then restrict access to because they want attention and fear they have nothing to offer society except an arbitrary control of the money supply.
If lenders refuse to make markets, the government (or the Fed) should step in and make them. If private banks refuse to make mortgage loans, Fannie and Freddie should do it, because it's in the public interest, in the General Welfare. The Fed can loan them money at 0% so they can invest in T-bills at 3% and keep the loans rolling over forever.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the checks are only taking money from the Fed, which creates it out of thin air anyway, and is required to return all interest on T-bills to the Treasury? No harm.
Lincoln realized that government's greatest potential lay in its ability to create money, and created over $400 million greenbacks to raise revenue without increasing taxes or borrowing it.. The Greenback Party of the 1870s, made up mostly of poor farmers who were being hurt by the deflation of trying to take those greenbacks out of circulation and go back on the gold standard, were ahead of their time in recognizing that government can and should create money to help individuals.
Principles that were unknown to Simon Newcombe and Lord Kelvin, both of whom predicted machines heavier than air would not fly for a very long time before the Wright brothers did it within a few years?
The interesting thing is that Couder's experiments with silicon walkers that replicate on a macroscopic scale the two-slit experiment require an "ether" substrate. So maybe the ether does exist after all.
I eat dirt. Your diet is a subset of mine! Exclamation mark.
Just like planets had to orbit in circles because circles are beautiful?
But if you're drugged or drunk before falling asleep, then it's consent?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/...
No water tower, no fracking. He doesn't like a particular side effect of fracking. But he fights others who don't like other side effects.
Isn't this the same argument used by the tobacco companies for years, while they suppressed scientific evidence?
I think garment workers in Bangladesh know something about having no options to escape building fires.
Is there a chapter on why econ theory predicted Japan's 230% debt-to-gdp should have led to the failure of their state by now?
How about a chapter on why the IMF was right and Sachs was wrong about how to deal with Bolivia's hyperinflation?
Or maybe a chapter on why the Fed could create trillions in a matter of weeks in 2008, doubling their balance sheet, without affecting inflation?
Maybe a chapter on C. H. Douglas's Social Credit theory, in which money has become a ticketing system rather than a means of exchange?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...:
Right now, it's great for the lenders, because they've rigged the system so that most people have an artificial scarcity of money imposed upon them.
The problem is not production capacity, it's scarcity thinking, and exerting control over others.
Why should an increase in the money supply devalue the dollar in my pocket? If today there are X amount of dollars, and tomorrow there are 2*X dollars, why do prices have to rise?
Inflation is psychological, not a physical necessity. If a shopkeeper decides to raise prices because there is more money, that's a choice, not a necessary consequence. The choice is basically saying "I want certain people not to be able to afford what I'm selling, so I'll raise prices until they can't."
The way to fight the psychology of inflation is through indexing. Make it seamless and automatic, and use some sort of trick like Brazil used with the Real (see http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...). Since money can be stored on cards, no wheelbarrows full of paper are necessary. It can all be handled behind the scenes so that people aren't even aware of inflation.
Eventually, those raising prices will realize they have to get attention some other way than by trying to create an artificial scarcity.
Shadow banking gets around pesky reserve requirements, so that hundreds of trillions can be created without regard to amounts of reserves kept at the Fed.
That's not really what happened. The market panicked, and groupthink took over, causing an emotion-based drop in the value of mortgage-backed assets that was far out of proportion to the actual losses from defaults alone. First, the market inflated the value of mortgages many times by creating "risk-free" instruments; then they deflated those assets many times more than the actual dollar value of the mortgage defaults, out of pure irrational fear.
The Fed had to step in to provide liquidity because the market was in a panic.
Basically, the Fed should keep interest rates low and loan directly to individuals. Also to state governments and cities like Detroit. Give them the same deal they give banks. Let the banks sit on their trillions if they want, the Fed can make the markets bankers are too scared to these days.
Why would empowering people to buy homes make money worthless?
Reposting a post from above:
Re:Economically Inefficient (Score:2)
by JMZero (449047) Alter Relationship on Sunday February 16, 2014 @10:21PM (#46263797)
It's kind of moot now that rental stores are pretty rare - but this actually isn't true. Under first sale doctrine in the US, you're allowed to rent out a DVD you own. If this wasn't true, rental places may never have taken off, as the studios would have preferred only to sell. They tried various license garbage to hinder renting, but it never held.
The real problem is the artificial scarcity of money, which banks create out of thin air, and then restrict access to because they want attention and fear they have nothing to offer society except an arbitrary control of the money supply.
If lenders refuse to make markets, the government (or the Fed) should step in and make them. If private banks refuse to make mortgage loans, Fannie and Freddie should do it, because it's in the public interest, in the General Welfare. The Fed can loan them money at 0% so they can invest in T-bills at 3% and keep the loans rolling over forever.
"Klapaucius constructs a massive machine capable of simulating the entire universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Mo' money, mo' problems.
The better solution is, eliminate the motivation to break in, in the first place.
Step one: have the government serve as an ethical example; so instead of exploiting vulnerabilities that exist in the wild, it fixes them.
Humans forget things, and let emotion interfere with their reasoning.
Looks like it's time to adjust the priors!
How much snow did it predict for Atlanta last week?
Just go with your gut then. When you die your intestinal bacteria will feast so why not let them guide you?