Better idea: guarantee a basic income to everyone, and encourage innovation through challenges (biz can hold them too). The focus should be on the advance of knowledge and technology, because that is what raises standard of living and increases the survival fitness of society. Debt is a giant distraction, purely a way for attention-seeking bankers to seize control of the national discourse to gratify their egos.
Innovation increases quality of life. We can print as much money as we want, but we need to keep innovation going. When biz is sitting on trillions licking its wounds after its latest screwup, govt should spend, preferably by providing a basic income and holding challenges (which biz can hold too, like Netflix, Google) to stimulate each individual to take advantage of his/her native curiosity and creativity to advance knowledge and technology. Look at Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio, and a currency they consider too strong...
Fiat currency is a technology. We the ppl can use it to benefit us! Just think, if the Fed created $16 trillion out of thin air and there was no inflation to speak of, why can't we print the budget and empower individuals with a basic income, and fund challenges to stimulate the innovation that is the real driver of standard of living increases?
The dirty little secret is, no one has to pay. The govt can create money like the banks do, without charging interest on it. As long as the US keeps innovating (which the govt can stimulate through challenges), we can print as much money as we like.
Think outside the box! Focus on innovation. Predictions of doom and gloom for grandchildren have been around since day one of this country, when Alexander Hamilton assumed the states' war debts. And they have never come true, because the US always kept innovation going, and standard of living increased for all generations of grandkids...
What causes inflation? Inflation is psychological. If I'm selling widgets and suddenly there's more money in circulation, why do I have to raise my prices? It's a choice, one that doesn't have to be made. It's not a law!
Are we really in "shite" though? In 1920 I may have been able to buy a suit for $20, but could I buy a radio or cellphone at any price? The pace of innovation has increased along with inflation, in fact outpacing it, hence our increased standard of living...
Interesting note relating to the price of clothes, from wikipedia:
In 1885, jeans could be bought in the US for $1.50 (approximately $37 today). Today, an equivalent pair of jeans can be purchased for around $30 to $50
You're ignoring the observed relationship between money creation and innovation. In fact we have an artificial scarcity of money because we rely on bankers to create money and allocate it, and they have a strong interest in keeping money scarce to benefit themselves.
Why do we only have X amount of supplies? Innovation has increased agricultural yields, economies of scale lower the cost of producing computers, etc. Is the supply of knowledge limited? Knowledge allows us to create new energy from sources we never knew we had before. Wale oil was once considered limited, but then innovation produced engines that could run on fossil fuels; in the same way, the next innovative fuel source is just around the corner, and just as beyond your limited imagination...
Think hard about what causes inflation. During the Civil War, there was a lot of destruction and killing going on, so what happened then is not necessarily predictive of what happens now when the govt prints debt-free money.
Inflation is caused largely by perception, by psychology. The Weimar Republic's inflation ended in a day. Bolivia's inflation during the 1980s ended in a similarly short period. Same with Brazil's hyperinflation...because inflation is mostly a psychological phenomenon.
Some inflation is tolerable, and the benefits of increasing the money supply (without attaching debt to the created money, which benefits the bankers at the expense of creating an artificial scarcity of money) outweigh the cost of inflation. For example, in 1920 I may have been able to buy a suit for $20, but could I buy a cellphone for any amount? Innovation seems to accelerate with the money supply.
For example, the Song Dynasty experienced an innovation boom when they became the first to use paper money. From wikipedia:
Notable advances in civil engineering, nautics, and metallurgy were made in Song China, as well as the introduction of the windmill to China during the thirteenth century. These advances, along with the introduction of paper-printed money, helped revolutionize and sustain the economy of the Song Dynasty.
better that they be working towards some kind of good than that they, for example, be trying to exploit existing bugs or looking for new bugs to exploit...
Current budget has been "unsustainable" since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states' War debts in the very first administration. And yet standard of living has risen continuously, and America's become the world's #1 economy. The yearly predictions of "unsustainable" (except during republican administrations, when conservatives say "Reagan proved deficits don't matter") have never come true...
What we should do now is give money directly to individuals (a basic income guarantee, like Tom Paine proposed in 1795), and encourage them to innovate on their own and in ad-hoc groups communicating through the wonderful tool of the internet, without the need for business hierarchies and salespeople.
The National Weather Service could hold challenges to stimulate individuals to create better solutions for weather balloons and such. Take the best ideas, and let biz do what they do best - incrementally innovate (like making computers smaller).
If the govt has to print money to fund the challenges and pay biz to commoditize the best ideas, it won't matter because we will be producing things others want, which will keep the currency strong.
The idea that govt can only spend what it takes in is an obsolete feudal myth, disproved by the fact that the USA has had a deficit for almost every year of its existence (since Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of Assumption assumed the states' war debts). Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency they consider too strong is another counterexample. The real question is why do banks get to have an exclusive right to create money and automatically attach debt to it?
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
The logical inference is that debt holds back scientific progress. Where does debt come from? Banks attach it to money creation. Therefore, if govt creates debt-free money, more ppl can be polymaths or unimaths or whatever they want to be, and standard of living will increase faster than if we trust to the free market.
Note how poster attempts to divert attention from her (?) willful (arguably) mis-citation (to support her [?] larger point) by criticizing the correction's tone. Does political correctness trump facts?
Note: poster takes one sentence from the wikipedia summary, and infers that the article cited supports her (?) claim. In fact, the sentence referred to reads: "One downside was that the new democracy was less capable of rapid response." The downside is not mentioned again in the lengthy section. Many other criticisms of Athenian democracy are discussed at much greater length (including its extreme severity, its overreaching its own laws, and its conviction of Socrates) than the one she (?) chooses to highlight.
In conclusion, "lack of rapid response" was not "why the Athenians abandoned democracy", as the poster blithely asserts; the source cited provides no supporting evidence for the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Better idea: guarantee a basic income to everyone, and encourage innovation through challenges (biz can hold them too). The focus should be on the advance of knowledge and technology, because that is what raises standard of living and increases the survival fitness of society. Debt is a giant distraction, purely a way for attention-seeking bankers to seize control of the national discourse to gratify their egos.
I've been buying apples for 78 cents a pound for years now.
Did the banks just borrow again to repay and keep it going?
Innovation increases quality of life. We can print as much money as we want, but we need to keep innovation going. When biz is sitting on trillions licking its wounds after its latest screwup, govt should spend, preferably by providing a basic income and holding challenges (which biz can hold too, like Netflix, Google) to stimulate each individual to take advantage of his/her native curiosity and creativity to advance knowledge and technology. Look at Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio, and a currency they consider too strong...
Remember Lincoln printed over $400 million greenbacks in the 1860s.
So the value of knowledge goes down the more there is of it?
Fiat currency is a technology. We the ppl can use it to benefit us! Just think, if the Fed created $16 trillion out of thin air and there was no inflation to speak of, why can't we print the budget and empower individuals with a basic income, and fund challenges to stimulate the innovation that is the real driver of standard of living increases?
The dirty little secret is, no one has to pay. The govt can create money like the banks do, without charging interest on it. As long as the US keeps innovating (which the govt can stimulate through challenges), we can print as much money as we like.
Make taxes voluntary and print the budget. As long as we innovate, the currency will remain strong, as Japan's is despite a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio.
Think outside the box! Focus on innovation. Predictions of doom and gloom for grandchildren have been around since day one of this country, when Alexander Hamilton assumed the states' war debts. And they have never come true, because the US always kept innovation going, and standard of living increased for all generations of grandkids...
What causes inflation? Inflation is psychological. If I'm selling widgets and suddenly there's more money in circulation, why do I have to raise my prices? It's a choice, one that doesn't have to be made. It's not a law!
What do you call the fallacy involved in trying to disprove the utility of the philosophy behind open source on a platform created by open source?
Are we really in "shite" though? In 1920 I may have been able to buy a suit for $20, but could I buy a radio or cellphone at any price? The pace of innovation has increased along with inflation, in fact outpacing it, hence our increased standard of living...
Interesting note relating to the price of clothes, from wikipedia:
Closer to $5 at Walmart...
Plumbing fixtures have a use in the real world, they turn on and off water flows, etc. What do bitcoins do in the real world :)
You're ignoring the observed relationship between money creation and innovation. In fact we have an artificial scarcity of money because we rely on bankers to create money and allocate it, and they have a strong interest in keeping money scarce to benefit themselves.
Why do we only have X amount of supplies? Innovation has increased agricultural yields, economies of scale lower the cost of producing computers, etc. Is the supply of knowledge limited? Knowledge allows us to create new energy from sources we never knew we had before. Wale oil was once considered limited, but then innovation produced engines that could run on fossil fuels; in the same way, the next innovative fuel source is just around the corner, and just as beyond your limited imagination...
Think hard about what causes inflation. During the Civil War, there was a lot of destruction and killing going on, so what happened then is not necessarily predictive of what happens now when the govt prints debt-free money.
Inflation is caused largely by perception, by psychology. The Weimar Republic's inflation ended in a day. Bolivia's inflation during the 1980s ended in a similarly short period. Same with Brazil's hyperinflation...because inflation is mostly a psychological phenomenon.
Some inflation is tolerable, and the benefits of increasing the money supply (without attaching debt to the created money, which benefits the bankers at the expense of creating an artificial scarcity of money) outweigh the cost of inflation. For example, in 1920 I may have been able to buy a suit for $20, but could I buy a cellphone for any amount? Innovation seems to accelerate with the money supply.
For example, the Song Dynasty experienced an innovation boom when they became the first to use paper money. From wikipedia:
better that they be working towards some kind of good than that they, for example, be trying to exploit existing bugs or looking for new bugs to exploit...
Current budget has been "unsustainable" since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states' War debts in the very first administration. And yet standard of living has risen continuously, and America's become the world's #1 economy. The yearly predictions of "unsustainable" (except during republican administrations, when conservatives say "Reagan proved deficits don't matter") have never come true...
What we should do now is give money directly to individuals (a basic income guarantee, like Tom Paine proposed in 1795), and encourage them to innovate on their own and in ad-hoc groups communicating through the wonderful tool of the internet, without the need for business hierarchies and salespeople.
The National Weather Service could hold challenges to stimulate individuals to create better solutions for weather balloons and such. Take the best ideas, and let biz do what they do best - incrementally innovate (like making computers smaller).
If the govt has to print money to fund the challenges and pay biz to commoditize the best ideas, it won't matter because we will be producing things others want, which will keep the currency strong.
The idea that govt can only spend what it takes in is an obsolete feudal myth, disproved by the fact that the USA has had a deficit for almost every year of its existence (since Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of Assumption assumed the states' war debts). Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency they consider too strong is another counterexample. The real question is why do banks get to have an exclusive right to create money and automatically attach debt to it?
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild
We need to use Reagan's strategy of deficit spending to out-innovate China.
The logical inference is that debt holds back scientific progress. Where does debt come from? Banks attach it to money creation. Therefore, if govt creates debt-free money, more ppl can be polymaths or unimaths or whatever they want to be, and standard of living will increase faster than if we trust to the free market.
Note how poster attempts to divert attention from her (?) willful (arguably) mis-citation (to support her [?] larger point) by criticizing the correction's tone. Does political correctness trump facts?
Note: poster takes one sentence from the wikipedia summary, and infers that the article cited supports her (?) claim. In fact, the sentence referred to reads: "One downside was that the new democracy was less capable of rapid response." The downside is not mentioned again in the lengthy section. Many other criticisms of Athenian democracy are discussed at much greater length (including its extreme severity, its overreaching its own laws, and its conviction of Socrates) than the one she (?) chooses to highlight.
In conclusion, "lack of rapid response" was not "why the Athenians abandoned democracy", as the poster blithely asserts; the source cited provides no supporting evidence for the claim.