used in the economics realm, has always been about price levels.
- nonsense.
Inflation has never been about prices themselves (until 2003 change in Webster dictionary), unless you are new to the whole human language thing, 'to inflate' never was 'to have rising prices'.
Prices rise and fall.
Inflation was always about expansion, in case of money it was expansion of monetary supply.
Deflation is also about monetary supply, not about falling prices.
As to your tires: they don't 'rise' or 'fall', they inflate or deflate, so your comparison there is quite apt (not that you'd know it).
If you have a pre-existing condition the insurance company can - and will - consider it when pricing a plan for you
- this is completely irrelevant, because people won't have to pay for any of it until the moment that they need insurance to pay for them, and then it does not matter what the plan costs, it still cannot be more than some limit, and the person at that point needs the plan to cover his expensive treatment, for example a surgery or some therapy against a serious condition, and if the person cannot afford the plan by himself, ACA says that the government will subsidise the plan for him.
Once the treatment is over, the person then will just drop the plan, will stop paying until the next time he needs it, at which point it is again, irrelevant to him what the plan costs, because he is getting it either free or much cheaper than the cost that he would bear if he paid for his treatment out of pocket.
You thought you had a good point, didn't you? What a gyp.
- yeah, because before ACA insurance didn't have to put you on a plan regardless of your condition, insurance was still insurance, not what it became with the ACA passing. You can read the link in my sig, or you can find something else to do.
Well, if there is a common joint account that's for the both of you to use, but if each one also has separate accounts then who is to say that they want to transfer whatever is there to other one in case of death anyway?
If you want to be meticulous about it, you should have a prenup and a will and then power of attorney. If you have savings and investments that are worth something, you should look at making sure that the government doesn't get any of it, by the way, that requires much more planning than this story here is about ('security storing private info for posterity')
Multiple accounts, people have multiple bank accounts. Consolidating all bank accounts into one after getting married, is that something people should do and why?
Let met quote the dictionary definition: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time."
- yes, the dictionaries today have that incorrect definition, but the definitions were changed, so you should GTFO, the Orwell was only too right.
From the 19th century up to the Eleventh New Collegiate Dictionary, issued in 2003, Webster's defined inflation as money printing.
In 2003, the definition changed to "a continuing rise in the general price level," which is only "usually attributed" to an abundance of money.
Nihilism is not about not caring what will happen after you are dead, that's just egoism, I am not implying that egoism is bad btw, just providing the proper nomenclature.
a few flash cards with the copies of necessary documents in them strategically placed in a bank deposit box or a safe place at home and a copy in another location.
Inflation is huge in Japan, inflation is money printing, price change is only a consequence of inflation. Dude.
In Japan the government is preventing prices from falling further, it's preventing the restructuring with all the money printing, which is what inflation is. Given all of the productivity and the recession in Japan the prices must be falling much faster, in real terms Japan is going through deflation, which is what would have restructured the debts and would have shut down the failed companies.
The government is fighting this every day with huge amounts of money printing, which is what inflation is, I know that you don't understand a word of what this means, so never mind.
- so your reading comprehension skills are 0, because I clearly explained how the forced incoming failure of the insurance companies will cause the gov't to bail them out constantly, which simply turns the system into single payer.
Bull. Shit. Minor doctor visits are beyond what most uninsured people in the US can afford to pay out of pocket.
- I went to doctors in USA and paid out of pocket on plenty of occasions, normally it's around 100 bucks per visit and tests are all different, with more people coming to the doctors to pay out of pocket, because they'll forgo insurance plans, the prices will drop.
Inflation is huge in Japan, it prevents the prices from dropping further, it prevents companies from shutting down and it prevents unproductively used malinvested capital from being freed up and restructured.
Oh, and by the way, the economic stagnation that the Japanese government is literally pushing upon the people by high level of government created inflation, preventing the society from deleveraging and restructuring the debts, preventing the economy from shaking loose of the dead weight zombie banks and other gov't propped up zombie companies, thus preventing the necessary investment capital from being available to people with business ideas and without funding... this wouldn't have anything to do with the crazy levels of stress that the Japanese are experiencing because they are stuck in these zombie companies and are scared of losing their jobs, because they wouldn't be able to find new ones? The young generations that are coming online, the crazy expectations that they must get accepted by one of those zombie companies because again, the investments are crowded out by government propping up the companies that should fail and shouldn't be around, so the young can only hope to get hired by the same failing and bailed out companies that everybody else hopes to work for because of lack of new opportunity... this wouldn't have anything to do with the depression that causes higher rates of suicide, would it?
the most interesting finding is that while users in the suicide group had lots of friends, they didn't have as many transitive relationships i.e. where A friends B friends C friends A. This suggests that it isn't lack of friends but a lack of tight social groupings that is a factor.
- or it could be just that these people are mostly unknown to each other in the real life.
- obviously it means to ask whether Python is legitimate or is bastard, what do you think it means? It is not asking whether Python is a 'data analysis tool', it is asking whether Python is a legitimate something or other.
So to answer the question you have to look at the Python's descendancy. You'll quickly discover that Python was actually conceived in a huge orgy of different programming paradigms, styles and languages, it's even named after a circus!
I believe the answer is that Python is a bastard of data analysis tools, but so what, bastards are people too.
Not that it really matters if people are poor or not, I don't see why the rich deserve much better.
- it's not about 'deserving', there is no god and there is no plan. It's about ability to buy things, isn't that what you mean?
The rich absolutely can buy more than the poor, that's the point of being richer than somebody else, isn't it? Why is that so you ask me?
I was very poor at some point, I took pretty terrible jobs for 2 years straight, at some point I moved on, got into university, got a full time job in my occupation while in the first year of the university, paid for everything out of pocket, took an 8k loan in the first year, that's all. Eventually I got better off, contracts that allowed me to make over 150k per year for almost a decade, currently running my business.
Why shouldn't I be living better off than somebody who didn't do all that?
People are people, and money is fiction.
- I actually agree with 'people are people' and I agree that the fake money created by the Federal reserve and other central banks are fiction, but not for the same reasons as you believe it is.
Money is the difference between the production and consumption. Make a chair and use it - you have a chair.
Make 10 chairs, use 1 and sell 9 - you made money.
What's the difference, people are people? Well, some people understand how to make and save money, some don't. People are not equal in many ways, this is one of those ways.
Slavery
- personally I would not have ratified the Constitution with that language in it, but they allowed for the amendments and eventually this was fixed through the constitutional process.
Women
- historic reasons, women didn't own property, women didn't pay taxes, they didn't run businesses. SOME did, but most didn't, and that's it.
If you don't contribute to the government income, then you shouldn't be in a position to command government spending, that's why it cannot be a democracy, it has to be a democratic republic that is represented by some people that are chosen for the role, whatever the process.
The mob shouldn't be allowed to rule, you get destruction and poor attempts at communism, which is just another word for destruction.
poor
- poor shouldn't be allowed to vote, that much is clear. But the outcome of the Constitutional union was free market (weak government), which combined successfully with capitalism (private property and ownership of means of production) and created the best environment for wealth production.
That much should be obvious even to you, as the US economy was agrarian, subsistence farming, hunter gatherer prior to industrialisation. USA was a third world country, pilgrims did try communism (you are probably unaware,) it was a dismal failure.
Capitalism and free market allowed private enterprise, it was the private property and contract law that produced the fastest economic growth in history of the world. In less than 100 years USA became the world's largest producer, manufacturer, exporter and thus creditor nation.
New technologies were coming on line not because of any government, because the improved manufacturing process that was a result of the profit motive allowed for the new tech and even required it.
Free market capitalism is what made the previously very poor people much wealthier. Free market capitalism is what raised the poor. Free market capitalism gave women rights. Free market capitalism allowed women to own tools of production. Free market capitalism made the people so productive that they did not have to have so many children and women freed up from being baby making machines.
Free market capitalism made the grown ups so productive by giving them the tools of production that they didn't need to send their children to work anymore. It's not like the people before free market capi
I wrote about ACA and how this is actually an Unaffordable care act, not 'affordable care act', it's in my sig.
Practically speaking what ACA has done already - it introduced the single payer system, because at this point the insurance companies are no longer in business of insurance, they are not allowed to deny new clients with pre-existing conditions (among other obligations), and this means that people will be cancelling their insurance and companies will be cancelling group policies as well, the only people who will stay on insurance plans will be those, that need it to pay their bills right now, so the people who need treatment right now will stay on.
Also insurance companies will have some new clients, those will be people you are describing, those without insurance, they will have subsidies, so it's the tax payers (lenders and everybody who holds US dollars due to inflation) that will be paying for this.
The premiums will be rising, because insurance companies won't have the savings to make the treatment payments, and thus more and more companies will be looking for ways to cancel their employee group insurance plans, even if it means some taxes (penalties) will be applied.
Healthy people will opt out and will pay for minor doctor visits out of pocket and will wait until they really need insurance for major coverage to get back on a plan (they can't be denied), and so all insurance companies will fail.
As all insurance companies will fail, the government will be bailing them out with taxed, borrowed and printed money.
So this IS a single payer system already, you just don't understand it.
--
As to 'paying by your means', people already pay by their means. Those with more money pay for more stuff, they pay for better hospital rooms and service and they buy the most expensive care they can afford, while those with modest means go for cheaper options.
But that's not what you are talking about, you want something else, which of-course is a price and wage control on a totally different level. You want people's wealth or incomes to be measured and you want to use their bills to cover everybody's visits, is that it?
As I said, you are not intelligent enough, to make such preposterous proposals and to think that this would not automatically stop all the rich people from visiting the hospitals that would engage in such behaviour is so short sighted, it's nearly funny.
The rich would simply buy completely private health care from doctors that you won't see in those public hospitals. There won't be any 'rich' people in the hospitals where you want to bilk them out of all of their money.
Those hospitals would be completely unfunded again, as being 'free' for the poor is something that will be completely abused, everybody will somehow be reclassified into the category of 'poor'.
Don't believe me?
Look at the food stamps, 1 in 7 is using them, so the program has more and more people in it, not because they can't afford food but because the administration wantsmore people to be on the program so they would keep voting for the same thing.
Same thing with disability claims, that are way upthese months, not because of more disabled people but because people are able to use those benefits because they are easily available.
But again, your ideology is completely contrary to the principles upon which the free society was founded in USA and obviously that's the current tidal shift that is propelled by the ever expanding government, which wants the people to be dependent, because that is ex
Slashdot Mirror
well, I did say come on
used in the economics realm, has always been about price levels.
- nonsense.
Inflation has never been about prices themselves (until 2003 change in Webster dictionary), unless you are new to the whole human language thing, 'to inflate' never was 'to have rising prices'.
Prices rise and fall.
Inflation was always about expansion, in case of money it was expansion of monetary supply.
Deflation is also about monetary supply, not about falling prices.
As to your tires: they don't 'rise' or 'fall', they inflate or deflate, so your comparison there is quite apt (not that you'd know it).
No, it's only a 'lack of tight social groupings' in that specific Internet social network.
If you have a pre-existing condition the insurance company can - and will - consider it when pricing a plan for you
- this is completely irrelevant, because people won't have to pay for any of it until the moment that they need insurance to pay for them, and then it does not matter what the plan costs, it still cannot be more than some limit, and the person at that point needs the plan to cover his expensive treatment, for example a surgery or some therapy against a serious condition, and if the person cannot afford the plan by himself, ACA says that the government will subsidise the plan for him.
Once the treatment is over, the person then will just drop the plan, will stop paying until the next time he needs it, at which point it is again, irrelevant to him what the plan costs, because he is getting it either free or much cheaper than the cost that he would bear if he paid for his treatment out of pocket.
You thought you had a good point, didn't you? What a gyp.
they've been free to do that before and have not.
- yeah, because before ACA insurance didn't have to put you on a plan regardless of your condition, insurance was still insurance, not what it became with the ACA passing. You can read the link in my sig, or you can find something else to do.
Well, if there is a common joint account that's for the both of you to use, but if each one also has separate accounts then who is to say that they want to transfer whatever is there to other one in case of death anyway?
If you want to be meticulous about it, you should have a prenup and a will and then power of attorney. If you have savings and investments that are worth something, you should look at making sure that the government doesn't get any of it, by the way, that requires much more planning than this story here is about ('security storing private info for posterity')
I hope you have a prenup with your ideas of 100% trust.
Welcome to the club.
It's quite lonely in it.
Multiple accounts, people have multiple bank accounts. Consolidating all bank accounts into one after getting married, is that something people should do and why?
Let met quote the dictionary definition: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time."
- yes, the dictionaries today have that incorrect definition, but the definitions were changed, so you should GTFO, the Orwell was only too right.
From the 19th century up to the Eleventh New Collegiate Dictionary, issued in 2003, Webster's defined inflation as money printing.
In 2003, the definition changed to "a continuing rise in the general price level," which is only "usually attributed" to an abundance of money.
My mothers maiden name has been snot rag ever since
- I know some people don't like their mothers, but come on!
No no, they are not trying to be personal, they are just trying to steal your soul.
really? Why not?
How about multiple accounts, one can be shared.
I can't understand, is that typed with a straight face or is that sarcasm?
Nihilism is not about not caring what will happen after you are dead, that's just egoism, I am not implying that egoism is bad btw, just providing the proper nomenclature.
a few flash cards with the copies of necessary documents in them strategically placed in a bank deposit box or a safe place at home and a copy in another location.
Inflation is huge in Japan, inflation is money printing, price change is only a consequence of inflation. Dude.
In Japan the government is preventing prices from falling further, it's preventing the restructuring with all the money printing, which is what inflation is. Given all of the productivity and the recession in Japan the prices must be falling much faster, in real terms Japan is going through deflation, which is what would have restructured the debts and would have shut down the failed companies.
The government is fighting this every day with huge amounts of money printing, which is what inflation is, I know that you don't understand a word of what this means, so never mind.
The ACA does not make a single payer system
- so your reading comprehension skills are 0, because I clearly explained how the forced incoming failure of the insurance companies will cause the gov't to bail them out constantly, which simply turns the system into single payer.
Bull. Shit. Minor doctor visits are beyond what most uninsured people in the US can afford to pay out of pocket.
- I went to doctors in USA and paid out of pocket on plenty of occasions, normally it's around 100 bucks per visit and tests are all different, with more people coming to the doctors to pay out of pocket, because they'll forgo insurance plans, the prices will drop.
Inflation is huge in Japan, it prevents the prices from dropping further, it prevents companies from shutting down and it prevents unproductively used malinvested capital from being freed up and restructured.
Makes sense, so you are saying that Yakuza should be recruiting from suicide forums.
Oh, and by the way, the economic stagnation that the Japanese government is literally pushing upon the people by high level of government created inflation, preventing the society from deleveraging and restructuring the debts, preventing the economy from shaking loose of the dead weight zombie banks and other gov't propped up zombie companies, thus preventing the necessary investment capital from being available to people with business ideas and without funding... this wouldn't have anything to do with the crazy levels of stress that the Japanese are experiencing because they are stuck in these zombie companies and are scared of losing their jobs, because they wouldn't be able to find new ones? The young generations that are coming online, the crazy expectations that they must get accepted by one of those zombie companies because again, the investments are crowded out by government propping up the companies that should fail and shouldn't be around, so the young can only hope to get hired by the same failing and bailed out companies that everybody else hopes to work for because of lack of new opportunity... this wouldn't have anything to do with the depression that causes higher rates of suicide, would it?
the most interesting finding is that while users in the suicide group had lots of friends, they didn't have as many transitive relationships i.e. where A friends B friends C friends A. This suggests that it isn't lack of friends but a lack of tight social groupings that is a factor.
- or it could be just that these people are mostly unknown to each other in the real life.
What does "legitimate data analysis tool" mean?
- obviously it means to ask whether Python is legitimate or is bastard, what do you think it means? It is not asking whether Python is a 'data analysis tool', it is asking whether Python is a legitimate something or other.
So to answer the question you have to look at the Python's descendancy. You'll quickly discover that Python was actually conceived in a huge orgy of different programming paradigms, styles and languages, it's even named after a circus!
I believe the answer is that Python is a bastard of data analysis tools, but so what, bastards are people too.
Not that it really matters if people are poor or not, I don't see why the rich deserve much better.
- it's not about 'deserving', there is no god and there is no plan. It's about ability to buy things, isn't that what you mean?
The rich absolutely can buy more than the poor, that's the point of being richer than somebody else, isn't it? Why is that so you ask me?
I was very poor at some point, I took pretty terrible jobs for 2 years straight, at some point I moved on, got into university, got a full time job in my occupation while in the first year of the university, paid for everything out of pocket, took an 8k loan in the first year, that's all. Eventually I got better off, contracts that allowed me to make over 150k per year for almost a decade, currently running my business.
Why shouldn't I be living better off than somebody who didn't do all that?
People are people, and money is fiction.
- I actually agree with 'people are people' and I agree that the fake money created by the Federal reserve and other central banks are fiction, but not for the same reasons as you believe it is.
Money is the difference between the production and consumption. Make a chair and use it - you have a chair.
Make 10 chairs, use 1 and sell 9 - you made money.
What's the difference, people are people? Well, some people understand how to make and save money, some don't. People are not equal in many ways, this is one of those ways.
Slavery
- personally I would not have ratified the Constitution with that language in it, but they allowed for the amendments and eventually this was fixed through the constitutional process.
Women
- historic reasons, women didn't own property, women didn't pay taxes, they didn't run businesses. SOME did, but most didn't, and that's it.
If you don't contribute to the government income, then you shouldn't be in a position to command government spending, that's why it cannot be a democracy, it has to be a democratic republic that is represented by some people that are chosen for the role, whatever the process.
The mob shouldn't be allowed to rule, you get destruction and poor attempts at communism, which is just another word for destruction.
poor
- poor shouldn't be allowed to vote, that much is clear. But the outcome of the Constitutional union was free market (weak government), which combined successfully with capitalism (private property and ownership of means of production) and created the best environment for wealth production.
That much should be obvious even to you, as the US economy was agrarian, subsistence farming, hunter gatherer prior to industrialisation. USA was a third world country, pilgrims did try communism (you are probably unaware,) it was a dismal failure.
Capitalism and free market allowed private enterprise, it was the private property and contract law that produced the fastest economic growth in history of the world. In less than 100 years USA became the world's largest producer, manufacturer, exporter and thus creditor nation.
New technologies were coming on line not because of any government, because the improved manufacturing process that was a result of the profit motive allowed for the new tech and even required it.
Free market capitalism is what made the previously very poor people much wealthier. Free market capitalism is what raised the poor. Free market capitalism gave women rights. Free market capitalism allowed women to own tools of production. Free market capitalism made the people so productive that they did not have to have so many children and women freed up from being baby making machines.
Free market capitalism made the grown ups so productive by giving them the tools of production that they didn't need to send their children to work anymore. It's not like the people before free market capi
I wrote about ACA and how this is actually an Unaffordable care act, not 'affordable care act', it's in my sig.
Practically speaking what ACA has done already - it introduced the single payer system, because at this point the insurance companies are no longer in business of insurance, they are not allowed to deny new clients with pre-existing conditions (among other obligations), and this means that people will be cancelling their insurance and companies will be cancelling group policies as well, the only people who will stay on insurance plans will be those, that need it to pay their bills right now, so the people who need treatment right now will stay on.
Also insurance companies will have some new clients, those will be people you are describing, those without insurance, they will have subsidies, so it's the tax payers (lenders and everybody who holds US dollars due to inflation) that will be paying for this.
The premiums will be rising, because insurance companies won't have the savings to make the treatment payments, and thus more and more companies will be looking for ways to cancel their employee group insurance plans, even if it means some taxes (penalties) will be applied.
Healthy people will opt out and will pay for minor doctor visits out of pocket and will wait until they really need insurance for major coverage to get back on a plan (they can't be denied), and so all insurance companies will fail.
As all insurance companies will fail, the government will be bailing them out with taxed, borrowed and printed money.
So this IS a single payer system already, you just don't understand it.
--
As to 'paying by your means', people already pay by their means. Those with more money pay for more stuff, they pay for better hospital rooms and service and they buy the most expensive care they can afford, while those with modest means go for cheaper options.
But that's not what you are talking about, you want something else, which of-course is a price and wage control on a totally different level. You want people's wealth or incomes to be measured and you want to use their bills to cover everybody's visits, is that it?
As I said, you are not intelligent enough, to make such preposterous proposals and to think that this would not automatically stop all the rich people from visiting the hospitals that would engage in such behaviour is so short sighted, it's nearly funny.
The rich would simply buy completely private health care from doctors that you won't see in those public hospitals. There won't be any 'rich' people in the hospitals where you want to bilk them out of all of their money.
Those hospitals would be completely unfunded again, as being 'free' for the poor is something that will be completely abused, everybody will somehow be reclassified into the category of 'poor'.
Don't believe me?
Look at the food stamps, 1 in 7 is using them, so the program has more and more people in it, not because they can't afford food but because the administration wants more people to be on the program so they would keep voting for the same thing.
Same thing with disability claims, that are way up these months, not because of more disabled people but because people are able to use those benefits because they are easily available.
But again, your ideology is completely contrary to the principles upon which the free society was founded in USA and obviously that's the current tidal shift that is propelled by the ever expanding government, which wants the people to be dependent, because that is ex