Nobody, there shouldn't be such a thing as 'public property'. All property needs to be owned, every last bit of it, and if it's not owned but is 'public' for some terrible reason, there shouldn't be any business allowed on that property at all for anybody under no circumstances.
Somebody wants to pump gas or oil out of ground that is 'public'? This property needs to be auctioned off, the property is likely to be bought by more than one owner, because it's not cheap to buy oil or gas reserves, and then all other considerations (environment, safety, etc.), all of this becomes a private matter and gov't has one role: protect individual freedoms, this means life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or private property.
Ha ha, and our local control freak, gov't sock puppet has spoken, like the true tyrant of free individuals that he is.
There is no gov't intervention in this matters that is justified under any conditions, any and all conditions. If somebody wants to fight this privately, hire a private investigator, etc., it's their business. Allowing gov't ANY freedom on the matters of speech at all.... well, what else is new from this jerkofsqure.
No, it's unnecessary and it's unreasonable because it doesn't have to be a monopoly on the delivery mechanism.
There is always a price for everything, and so a connection to the Internet today doesn't have to be wired at all, satellite Internet exists, wireless Internet is only a step away (I have it on my mobile phone at a very good speed, etc.)
As to cable and all that - gov't creates the barriers to entry by "owning" public assets, such as "public property" and all those taxes that gov't requires to be paid for property create the barriers and support the monopoly power of those already with infrastructure.
When US gov't killed off 3000 phone companies to give AT&T the monopoly (because of 'national security reasons', but in reality because monopolies make better money donors to politicians), that's when the problem was born actually.
There is no reason why a business should not be able to discriminate and sell various types of products that do different things, like give preference to traffic that is more profitable.
There is no reason why in a competing market there wouldn't be various products that would also provide access to the Internet that does not discriminate between traffic, but sells access that is understood to be 'neutral' to the content.
But what am I saying.... of-course there is a reason and this reason is lack of competition that originates from government creating monopolies in everything, including delivery of electrical power, water, gas, sewer services, but also telecommunications, etc.
The actual solution cannot be legislative, all of that always ends up creating unintended consequences and causes the exact opposite effect of what is being legislated. The solution is a market solution, but this will not be allowed. So of-course this will be legislative and don't for a second think that you all will be winning from that type of a 'solution'.
Clean ranks? So how do you 'clean ranks' of say agent provocateurs, people who otherwise work for the State and are using Tor to run child porn on it in order to make a case that it should be shut down?
Why did the gold price peak in 1980 when inflation took place in the 70ies as you said earlier?
- well, you don't understand money, markets or interest rates it looks like from this question, or are you just ignorant on history?
Paul Volcker took interest rates up from single digits to 21.5% and that was the only way for the inflation to stop and so the rate of return on bonds became positive again and it became more profitable to park in bonds and not in gold.
You see, it's difficult to have a 'discussion' with somebody who thinks he knows something, while I know that this person is absolutely 100% ignorant on all issues surrounding economics, so yes, let's leave it.
The gold price is totally artificial, just like the price for diamonds
- the value of gold is stable, and the goods priced in gold are either keeping their price or their prices are falling, as I said, Model T Ford cost 20 ounces of gold in 1913 and it is possible to buy a car today with less than 20 ounces (that would be 32000 dollars approximately, and it's possible to buy cars cheaper than that), thus I am proving the point (and I can do this with every good that existed and exists today, oil for example, food items, etc.etc.), what is artificial is the dollar that is not tethered to any actual anchor - Nixon defaulted on the dollar and thus dollar is given an arbitrary value that is not real, it's not gold that rose in price, it's the dollar that fell.
20 ounces of gold was 380 DOLLARS in 1913, to buy a car for 380 today.... well, you can get something I suppose from a junk yard, I don't know that it is a car, but it may have a general shape of one.
As to fluctuations of prices - well, not only do you not understand money, you also don't understand market, so yes, let's leave it at that.
I'd think degrees from Yale and MIT and a Professorship at Princeton would make someone an economist
- yeah, sure you'd think, but you'd be wrong. Degrees don't make somebody an economist, too many people have these degrees who have no two working brain cells they could rub together.
, Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis,
- 1. That's misrepresentation. His clients lost money in 2008 and regained EVERYTHING back by the beginning of 2009. However they were making money from late nineties all the way to 2008 and since 2009 till today, so clearly taking a year when EVERYBODY lost money and saying that Schiff didn't make correct ECONOMIC predictions based on the way his INVESTMENT advice performed in ONE YEAR is disingenuous, so find another fact, because this one is nonsense.
2. Schiff's prediction on hyperinflation, just like everybody else's prediction on hyperinflation is the WORST CASE SCENARIO. The prediction is that if the Fed keeps printing money eventually there will be hyperinflation and that is absolutely correct, anybody who doesn't understand that doesn't understand what hyperinflation means. Given the lowest interest rates and yields on bonds in decades, which is all created artificially by the Fed printing and buying up Treasuries, the PROBABILITY of hyper inflation is growing all the time, while the reality is that the actual inflation that exists today is already bad.
Inflation doesn't have to enter the 'hyper' zone to be bad for the economy, seems you don't understand that, but hey, you believe that Krugman is an economist.
As to people investing - putting their money where their mouths are, that's the only true prediction, all other predictions are just running mouths off.
Gold is the measure of inflation, it is money. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the words "inherent value", doesn't change the fact that gold is money and it is pieces of paper that have no value. All fiat currencies in history have been destroyed, the once that are in existence today will also be destroyed, that is how it goes.
Yet for 20 ounces of gold in 1913 it was possible to buy Model T Ford and today it's possible to buy a car with even fewer ounces (productivity drives prices down in real money, see?)
As I said - hyper inflation is the worst case scenario and it probably is going to happen, the USA cannot pay its debts back if true interest rates are set (not by gov't, the market sets true interest rates), and so USA will default the way it knows how - not through an honest bankruptcy and restructuring, but by printing USD, just like all other failed economies and governments did, and plenty have done so even in the last 100 years, USA is most likely going the same road.
As to gold being 1600 today while it was 19 USD in 1913, it means the dollar lost almost 99% of its value in 100 years, that's what it means.
By the way, inflation of 4.5% (just for the hell of it), means that value of money halves every 15 years. Nixon implemented price and wage controls when inflation hit 4%, of-course wage and price controls are the wrong thing to do and they never work and they create unemployment and black markets, but at least it shows that during Nixon's time they were concerned about 4% inflation.
Today real inflation is 3 to 4 times higher than that and nobody cares. Even the inflation that is stated to be the Fed's goal is 4% and they think it's just peachy.
Krugman is on board with that of-course, so what changed in this 'science' of economics since the times of Nixon? Well, in physics the laws didn't change, did they change in economics?
No, the politics changed, and this is the point - Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
Hyperinflation is the worst case scenario, and as long as USA can keep EXPORTING its inflation (by other countries printing too and buying up US dollars fast and debasing their own currencies and thus subsidising the USA, thus the trade deficits of 54 Billion USD / month) the inflation will be hurting the people who PRODUCE first, and in USA the prices are rising slower.
USA has gotten very lucky after the WWII, when it didn't have any destruction of its infrastructure, so it had about 15 years of head start on all sorts of production and that's why USA had the very well paid working class (not middle class, that's business owners and professional, no, just working class).
But as the US economy was growing, so was the gov't, and all the excesses of the fifties and sixties lead to the stagflation of the seventies, when USA defaulted on the dollar.
Today the gold priced in US dollars is 1600, that's up from 19 per ounce dollars in 1913, are you too lazy to figure out the percentage of value of the dollar that was lost?
It doesn't have to be 'hyper' inflation to be bad, and it doesn't have to translate to USA not being able to afford eating as long as the rest of the world is willing to buy the inflated dollar.
The rest of the world is on the same path as USA in terms of money destruction because the rest of the world has the same type of 'economists' telling them what's what.
Well, this will end. One good thing about the coming collapse, the real collapse, when the US dollar and bond bubbles collapse, is that it will bring down this type of "economics".
The solution to your body losing blood because of a wound is to lose more blood. See how that works out for you.
Maybe the solution for your body having cancer is to add more cancer cells to it, maybe that will work.
Maybe the solution to you getting fat is to eat more sugar and chicken, who knows, you may just slim down.
The solution to your back aching is to put more stress on it.
The solution to your house being flooded is to add more water.
When your house is on fire, just add more kerosene, yeah, that's the ticket.
The solution to you being in debt is to add more debt indefinitely, in fact you should get one credit card after another and just move your debt from one to another, no problem, right? Because it's totally up to you and not up to your lender when to cut you off.
The solution to you being poor is to get into gov't subsidised housing debt, never mind the extra expenses that come with that - taxes, maintenance, etc., you'll be rich, because you'll have this asset.... oh, and if you have no downpayment - no problem. Just get FHA to finance your downpayment for you at 0%, who needs equity? The banks certainly shouldn't care, right? They are "insured by the gov't".
---
Saying that spending more money by GOVERNMENT is equivalent of INVESTING into something useful is about as smart as all of the above, given the fact that gov't has spent plenty of the borrowed and taxed and printed money over the decades, this should have created a golden age in USA if your ideas actually worked.
But your ideas are as dumb as they get, the gov't spends and all that it means is that the credit is unavailable to the private sector, the investments are destroyed, because investments come from savings, and nobody saves in this inflation, and whoever had investments in production capacity moved out already.
USA isn't producing and no amount of spending by gov't will change that hard fact. FACT: the trade deficit is greater than ever and it's growing, and it's 54 Billion USD/month, this means USA is consuming 54 billion USD / month more than it produces.
Fact: inflation is here, that's what all the commodity prices are showing. Gov't is pretending that speculators are to blame, but speculators are only the discoverers of real prices, they don't set them, they don't make the rules, they discover prices AND they stand on BOTH sides of the trade. So if they are wrong, some of them lose money and those who are right make money, but they can't move the market, they can only tell us what the prices are.
Fact: gov't spending is growing all the time and you are still NOT getting what you are proposing - some sort of 'investment'. It's not an investment - stealing money and spending on gov't projects. If it was a legitimate investment the trade deficit would shrink.
Fact: USA cannot afford this government and it is already bankrupt. USA is bankrupt today, if people stop lending USA money, it cannot make even interest payments on what it has, because that would be the consequence - huge spike in rates, never mind spending on anything else, USA would spend all of its taxes on interest payments alone. Of-course it wouldn't actually do that, because foreigners don't vote in US elections, and no POTUS will say: we are raising taxes and stopping SS and Medicare payments because Chinese and the rest must be paid.
USA is bankrupt, the sooner the world understands it and stops the credit line, the better for everybody, including the USA. Collapse is inevitable, the only question is: will it be a normal bankruptcy or an insane type of inflation?
Fact: Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
-- You can go argue with him if that's your preference.
Yeah well, the real economists just make money based on their own understanding of economics. They shorted the banking sector before the 2008 and they have gold and silver for at least 10 years now.
It's been a long time since 1970s, and they have redrawn the way they measure that pathetic index in so many ways, it is absolutely irrelevant. They are going to pass more measures this year to make it smaller, they are saying even now it 'overstates inflation'.
If inflation is measured the way they used to during Nixon, it would be anywhere between 11 and 15%, and it's been there for a couple of decades.
Of-course there are plenty of my comments, where I show simple examples of inflation based on commodity prices, I don't need to redo that, I can just link to one of them.
As to my world view - at least I have one and I base my decisions on my world view, that's how I do business, that's how I invest my money.
Yeah, well, predicting something by only paying a LIP SERVICE to it is not predicting at all.
Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mark Faber, Jim Rogers, etc.etc. are not just predicting this, they are making money on their predictions by following their own advice and owning inflation hedges and playing against the market, that's the REAL prediction.
Krugman isn't predicting shit, because he isn't putting his money where his mouth is (very tightly wrapped around the politicians' collective cock).
I just watched his stupid remarks in that clip: "it's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy" - fucking retard.
Depressed economy with his recipe - counterfeit as much currency as possible and finance gov't spending that way (and taxes and borrowing, but print print print) - that's how you get inflation, that's what inflation is.
In the 70s USA was exactly in that situation for 10 years - huge inflation (gold going from 35 to 800 etc.) and a recession or depression, whatever the official definition spin is - the production capacity is falling so fast that people are losing jobs and even all the printing doesn't lower the wages fast enough to make it worthwhile keeping them employed.
What do you think 0 or negative interest rates are in relation to the employment? How do you think Federal reserve (with Krugman's ideology) is supposed to 'increase employment'? Do you KNOW HOW? Inflation - it means that the REAL WAGES ARE FALLING.
So the fucking gov't is printing money so that the real wages are falling, and that is what its fucking solution is - lower the wages of employees.
Well fuck me sideways, first they implement fucking retarded minimum wage laws and various welfare programs (and years of EI is also welfare) and then they want to keep people employed by lowering their real wages.
The people are not good at understanding that it's not the number on the dollar bill that counts, it is what it can buy, the equivalent purchasing power of that dollar is NOT stable, it depends on various things, but when gov't prints, it depends heavily on all that inflation, the purchasing power is destroyed by gov't.
Now, Krugman will tell you that gov't must hire and keep all sorts of people hired with all that FAKE money and taxes, and what does that do?
It doesn't allow the economy to restructure the debts it is in, that's first.
Second, it doesn't allow the economy to reduce the amount it's spending on gov't, and that amount has to be reduced. Gov't is a luxury, not an essential of some sort. The bigger the gov't the bigger the luxury, and somebody is PAYING for that luxury, and it's the productivity of the economy that is suffering.
Third, it steals purchasing power from the private sector, misallocates the resources to the public sector, and look at the trade deficits - record high trade deficits for 15 or 20 years now, right? What is it, 54 billion USD a month? That means that US economy is that unproductive, it consumes 54 Billion USD / month MORE than it produces. Why is that? Because:
Fourth, inflation destroys savings and savings are investment capital. Investment capital is destroyed by the inflation and investment capital leaves.
That's why the US is in this crisis today, it's because the dollar is fake, it's because in 1971 the dollar was defaulted on completely and since then everybody who had any savings and investment in production capacity moved their savings and investment in production capacity out of the country.
Krugman's solution? MORE OF THAT SAME THING THAT CAUSED THE DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Yeah, and if the bail out didn't work, in Krugman's world it means it wasn't big enough.
The 800 Billion USD of bail outs? Not big enough by Krugman. He wanted it to be another 2 or 3 hundred billion. As if that would have done the trick - fixing economy with fake money doesn't work, because fake money does not equal real investments.
Real investments cannot happen with fake money, because fake money is only good for gambling and not for productive capacity, because inflation is faster than any return on any real business. That's why the bubbles are inflated and burst, the next one is in dollars and bonds.
You won't hear that from Krugman. But if you listen to that clip, you'll hear that an alien invasion would be good, because it would create fake demand. He is for a war like spending.
Krugman believes that WWII was the key to ending the Great Depression, as if all that employment making bombs a
Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble, same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually, he believes destroying assets, counterfeiting money and creating bubbles is good for economics, he is a charlatan, not an economist. He is one of those 'economists' used to justify the policies of the gov't, regardless of the administration, they use him - he is 'main stream'.
Yeah, well, if they want to somehow redeem themselves, they should revoke all of the economics awards since Hayek and then they should immediately nominate Schiff and others, like Rogers - now that right there is 56 seconds worth a Nobel prize in economics and peace.
They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'. More so called 'economists' have gotten theirs, with their only contributions being that they support the status quo. They insist that counterfeiting fiat currency supports the bubble economies (of-course that's not what they call it), and they see this as a positive and give governments the green light justifications to print and spend more money when in fact counterfeiting must stop and governments must shrink to fix the economies. You will never hear this from the 'economists' who get their Nobel prizes, not since Hayek has gotten his. Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.
They are NOT Randian, they are just doing business. They never had the money before to care about the issue, now, in my case, I moved my business before I started making any real money with it (as a contractor I was doing well for myself, but I didn't want to have the business stuck in a system where taxes and regulations are absurd). I don't call myself 'Randian' either, I am a libertarian, these days closer to an anarchist, she was not.
Yes, my point is that the users are the ones making this choice that they don't care about free and or open source software and they represent the majority of this market and that's why closed source software exists and sells and that's why there are no applications that he specifically wants being free and or open source.
I don't fully understand his position, I am not sure what his point is actually. Is that that closed source software is bad? Well, majority of users disagree. Is it that there are not enough open and free source applications? Well, clearly, that's because majority of the users don't care.
This is all about the market and few people who want this particular feature in their software don't represent a large enough market segment for this to happen.
And this story is about a company that is looking for a way out of that messed up government system, that forces people to give up their earnings, as if they are actual possessions of the government.
Finland is losing the companies now, in the global world, they will lose their gravy train of having a closed system of monopolies created by the government, as more and more is outsourced elsewhere, as the capital searches for ways to make things cheaper and make more profit, and the socialist welfare system that was overtaxing the population will collapse and I am going to enjoy watching it collapse if I am not dead in the next 10-15 years.
Infrastructure is done by the private market that is interested in profit, that's how USA got its infrastructure when it truly was the innovator, was truly increasing its wealth by building up production capacity, becoming world's largest producer and exporter and creditor nation... all without any income or payroll or corporate or any type of wealth taxes and mostly without government at all (1870 - 1913).
Public healthcare is none of government's business, it's a private business, just like all others. Gov't involvement only destroys the healthcare over time, I am expecting to see all gov't ran types of health care to fail within the next 10 years.
Education - what a joke. Years and years (12 for USA?) of this subsidised 'education' that wastes all this human capital. The students that come out of it are so worthless that the gov't then steps in again, and after all the taxes that were paid for this worthless education (made worthless by gov't money and gov't economic and fiscal policy), then the gov't uses taxes to subsidise the minimum wage (minimum wage is a tax, it prevents many people from working, prevents many jobs from existing and creates an imbalance in huge number of cases where the costs and prices are pushed up artificially, where the free market would have those costs much lower, the consumer and the economy end up being hurt by this).
After all of this nonsense 'public education', the students who come out are so worthless they can't legitimately find jobs that are ABOVE the artificial level of the minimum wage, and so the people who subsidised them for 12 years end up subsidising them even further, and all so that what? So that there is a pretence that there is some worthwhile public education system? So that there is a voting block of those, who are basically on a gov't dole as welfare recipients (whether directly from welfare or from ever lasting EI or this minimum wage nonsense).
All of this so that some people who think they are 'progressives' can keep believing that they are doing something useful and good in the world while the reality is that there is a huge number of people in politics and some big business benefiting from all of this resource misallocation?
There are 7 witnesses in that Congressional hearing, 6 of them are special interests who want your money, one of them represents the actual tax payers, guess who is being listened to?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody, there shouldn't be such a thing as 'public property'. All property needs to be owned, every last bit of it, and if it's not owned but is 'public' for some terrible reason, there shouldn't be any business allowed on that property at all for anybody under no circumstances.
Somebody wants to pump gas or oil out of ground that is 'public'? This property needs to be auctioned off, the property is likely to be bought by more than one owner, because it's not cheap to buy oil or gas reserves, and then all other considerations (environment, safety, etc.), all of this becomes a private matter and gov't has one role: protect individual freedoms, this means life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or private property.
Ha ha, and our local control freak, gov't sock puppet has spoken, like the true tyrant of free individuals that he is.
There is no gov't intervention in this matters that is justified under any conditions, any and all conditions. If somebody wants to fight this privately, hire a private investigator, etc., it's their business. Allowing gov't ANY freedom on the matters of speech at all.... well, what else is new from this jerkofsqure.
No, it's unnecessary and it's unreasonable because it doesn't have to be a monopoly on the delivery mechanism.
There is always a price for everything, and so a connection to the Internet today doesn't have to be wired at all, satellite Internet exists, wireless Internet is only a step away (I have it on my mobile phone at a very good speed, etc.)
As to cable and all that - gov't creates the barriers to entry by "owning" public assets, such as "public property" and all those taxes that gov't requires to be paid for property create the barriers and support the monopoly power of those already with infrastructure.
When US gov't killed off 3000 phone companies to give AT&T the monopoly (because of 'national security reasons', but in reality because monopolies make better money donors to politicians), that's when the problem was born actually.
There is no reason why a business should not be able to discriminate and sell various types of products that do different things, like give preference to traffic that is more profitable.
There is no reason why in a competing market there wouldn't be various products that would also provide access to the Internet that does not discriminate between traffic, but sells access that is understood to be 'neutral' to the content.
But what am I saying.... of-course there is a reason and this reason is lack of competition that originates from government creating monopolies in everything, including delivery of electrical power, water, gas, sewer services, but also telecommunications, etc.
The actual solution cannot be legislative, all of that always ends up creating unintended consequences and causes the exact opposite effect of what is being legislated. The solution is a market solution, but this will not be allowed. So of-course this will be legislative and don't for a second think that you all will be winning from that type of a 'solution'.
Clean ranks? So how do you 'clean ranks' of say agent provocateurs, people who otherwise work for the State and are using Tor to run child porn on it in order to make a case that it should be shut down?
Oh, I didn't notice a question:
Why did the gold price peak in 1980 when inflation took place in the 70ies as you said earlier?
- well, you don't understand money, markets or interest rates it looks like from this question, or are you just ignorant on history?
Paul Volcker took interest rates up from single digits to 21.5% and that was the only way for the inflation to stop and so the rate of return on bonds became positive again and it became more profitable to park in bonds and not in gold.
You see, it's difficult to have a 'discussion' with somebody who thinks he knows something, while I know that this person is absolutely 100% ignorant on all issues surrounding economics, so yes, let's leave it.
The gold price is totally artificial, just like the price for diamonds
- the value of gold is stable, and the goods priced in gold are either keeping their price or their prices are falling, as I said, Model T Ford cost 20 ounces of gold in 1913 and it is possible to buy a car today with less than 20 ounces (that would be 32000 dollars approximately, and it's possible to buy cars cheaper than that), thus I am proving the point (and I can do this with every good that existed and exists today, oil for example, food items, etc.etc.), what is artificial is the dollar that is not tethered to any actual anchor - Nixon defaulted on the dollar and thus dollar is given an arbitrary value that is not real, it's not gold that rose in price, it's the dollar that fell.
20 ounces of gold was 380 DOLLARS in 1913, to buy a car for 380 today.... well, you can get something I suppose from a junk yard, I don't know that it is a car, but it may have a general shape of one.
As to fluctuations of prices - well, not only do you not understand money, you also don't understand market, so yes, let's leave it at that.
I'd think degrees from Yale and MIT and a Professorship at Princeton would make someone an economist
- yeah, sure you'd think, but you'd be wrong. Degrees don't make somebody an economist, too many people have these degrees who have no two working brain cells they could rub together.
, Peter Schiff's clients appear to have lost money during the crisis,
-
1. That's misrepresentation. His clients lost money in 2008 and regained EVERYTHING back by the beginning of 2009. However they were making money from late nineties all the way to 2008 and since 2009 till today, so clearly taking a year when EVERYBODY lost money and saying that Schiff didn't make correct ECONOMIC predictions based on the way his INVESTMENT advice performed in ONE YEAR is disingenuous, so find another fact, because this one is nonsense.
2. Schiff's prediction on hyperinflation, just like everybody else's prediction on hyperinflation is the WORST CASE SCENARIO. The prediction is that if the Fed keeps printing money eventually there will be hyperinflation and that is absolutely correct, anybody who doesn't understand that doesn't understand what hyperinflation means. Given the lowest interest rates and yields on bonds in decades, which is all created artificially by the Fed printing and buying up Treasuries, the PROBABILITY of hyper inflation is growing all the time, while the reality is that the actual inflation that exists today is already bad.
Inflation doesn't have to enter the 'hyper' zone to be bad for the economy, seems you don't understand that, but hey, you believe that Krugman is an economist.
As to people investing - putting their money where their mouths are, that's the only true prediction, all other predictions are just running mouths off.
Gold is the measure of inflation, it is money. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the words "inherent value", doesn't change the fact that gold is money and it is pieces of paper that have no value. All fiat currencies in history have been destroyed, the once that are in existence today will also be destroyed, that is how it goes.
Yet for 20 ounces of gold in 1913 it was possible to buy Model T Ford and today it's possible to buy a car with even fewer ounces (productivity drives prices down in real money, see?)
As I said - hyper inflation is the worst case scenario and it probably is going to happen, the USA cannot pay its debts back if true interest rates are set (not by gov't, the market sets true interest rates), and so USA will default the way it knows how - not through an honest bankruptcy and restructuring, but by printing USD, just like all other failed economies and governments did, and plenty have done so even in the last 100 years, USA is most likely going the same road.
As to gold being 1600 today while it was 19 USD in 1913, it means the dollar lost almost 99% of its value in 100 years, that's what it means.
By the way, inflation of 4.5% (just for the hell of it), means that value of money halves every 15 years. Nixon implemented price and wage controls when inflation hit 4%, of-course wage and price controls are the wrong thing to do and they never work and they create unemployment and black markets, but at least it shows that during Nixon's time they were concerned about 4% inflation.
Today real inflation is 3 to 4 times higher than that and nobody cares. Even the inflation that is stated to be the Fed's goal is 4% and they think it's just peachy.
Krugman is on board with that of-course, so what changed in this 'science' of economics since the times of Nixon? Well, in physics the laws didn't change, did they change in economics?
No, the politics changed, and this is the point - Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
Hyperinflation is the worst case scenario, and as long as USA can keep EXPORTING its inflation (by other countries printing too and buying up US dollars fast and debasing their own currencies and thus subsidising the USA, thus the trade deficits of 54 Billion USD / month) the inflation will be hurting the people who PRODUCE first, and in USA the prices are rising slower.
USA has gotten very lucky after the WWII, when it didn't have any destruction of its infrastructure, so it had about 15 years of head start on all sorts of production and that's why USA had the very well paid working class (not middle class, that's business owners and professional, no, just working class).
But as the US economy was growing, so was the gov't, and all the excesses of the fifties and sixties lead to the stagflation of the seventies, when USA defaulted on the dollar.
Today the gold priced in US dollars is 1600, that's up from 19 per ounce dollars in 1913, are you too lazy to figure out the percentage of value of the dollar that was lost?
It doesn't have to be 'hyper' inflation to be bad, and it doesn't have to translate to USA not being able to afford eating as long as the rest of the world is willing to buy the inflated dollar.
The rest of the world is on the same path as USA in terms of money destruction because the rest of the world has the same type of 'economists' telling them what's what.
Well, this will end. One good thing about the coming collapse, the real collapse, when the US dollar and bond bubbles collapse, is that it will bring down this type of "economics".
The solution to your body losing blood because of a wound is to lose more blood. See how that works out for you.
Maybe the solution for your body having cancer is to add more cancer cells to it, maybe that will work.
Maybe the solution to you getting fat is to eat more sugar and chicken, who knows, you may just slim down.
The solution to your back aching is to put more stress on it.
The solution to your house being flooded is to add more water.
When your house is on fire, just add more kerosene, yeah, that's the ticket.
The solution to you being in debt is to add more debt indefinitely, in fact you should get one credit card after another and just move your debt from one to another, no problem, right? Because it's totally up to you and not up to your lender when to cut you off.
The solution to you being poor is to get into gov't subsidised housing debt, never mind the extra expenses that come with that - taxes, maintenance, etc., you'll be rich, because you'll have this asset.... oh, and if you have no downpayment - no problem. Just get FHA to finance your downpayment for you at 0%, who needs equity? The banks certainly shouldn't care, right? They are "insured by the gov't".
---
Saying that spending more money by GOVERNMENT is equivalent of INVESTING into something useful is about as smart as all of the above, given the fact that gov't has spent plenty of the borrowed and taxed and printed money over the decades, this should have created a golden age in USA if your ideas actually worked.
But your ideas are as dumb as they get, the gov't spends and all that it means is that the credit is unavailable to the private sector, the investments are destroyed, because investments come from savings, and nobody saves in this inflation, and whoever had investments in production capacity moved out already.
USA isn't producing and no amount of spending by gov't will change that hard fact. FACT: the trade deficit is greater than ever and it's growing, and it's 54 Billion USD/month, this means USA is consuming 54 billion USD / month more than it produces.
Fact: inflation is here, that's what all the commodity prices are showing. Gov't is pretending that speculators are to blame, but speculators are only the discoverers of real prices, they don't set them, they don't make the rules, they discover prices AND they stand on BOTH sides of the trade. So if they are wrong, some of them lose money and those who are right make money, but they can't move the market, they can only tell us what the prices are.
Fact: gov't spending is growing all the time and you are still NOT getting what you are proposing - some sort of 'investment'. It's not an investment - stealing money and spending on gov't projects. If it was a legitimate investment the trade deficit would shrink.
Fact: USA cannot afford this government and it is already bankrupt. USA is bankrupt today, if people stop lending USA money, it cannot make even interest payments on what it has, because that would be the consequence - huge spike in rates, never mind spending on anything else, USA would spend all of its taxes on interest payments alone. Of-course it wouldn't actually do that, because foreigners don't vote in US elections, and no POTUS will say: we are raising taxes and stopping SS and Medicare payments because Chinese and the rest must be paid.
USA is bankrupt, the sooner the world understands it and stops the credit line, the better for everybody, including the USA. Collapse is inevitable, the only question is: will it be a normal bankruptcy or an insane type of inflation?
Fact: Krugman is a politician, not an economist.
--
You can go argue with him if that's your preference.
Yeah well, the real economists just make money based on their own understanding of economics. They shorted the banking sector before the 2008 and they have gold and silver for at least 10 years now.
CPI? You are serious, aren't you? CPI?
It's been a long time since 1970s, and they have redrawn the way they measure that pathetic index in so many ways, it is absolutely irrelevant. They are going to pass more measures this year to make it smaller, they are saying even now it 'overstates inflation'.
If inflation is measured the way they used to during Nixon, it would be anywhere between 11 and 15%, and it's been there for a couple of decades.
Of-course there are plenty of my comments, where I show simple examples of inflation based on commodity prices, I don't need to redo that, I can just link to one of them.
As to my world view - at least I have one and I base my decisions on my world view, that's how I do business, that's how I invest my money.
Looks like YOU are the one who can't even understand the written word. The 2 freaking Nobel prizes are mentioned in my comment: peace and economics.
There should be another one just for you, in using straw to make arguments.
Yeah, well, predicting something by only paying a LIP SERVICE to it is not predicting at all.
Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mark Faber, Jim Rogers, etc.etc. are not just predicting this, they are making money on their predictions by following their own advice and owning inflation hedges and playing against the market, that's the REAL prediction.
Krugman isn't predicting shit, because he isn't putting his money where his mouth is (very tightly wrapped around the politicians' collective cock).
I just watched his stupid remarks in that clip: "it's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy" - fucking retard.
Depressed economy with his recipe - counterfeit as much currency as possible and finance gov't spending that way (and taxes and borrowing, but print print print) - that's how you get inflation, that's what inflation is.
In the 70s USA was exactly in that situation for 10 years - huge inflation (gold going from 35 to 800 etc.) and a recession or depression, whatever the official definition spin is - the production capacity is falling so fast that people are losing jobs and even all the printing doesn't lower the wages fast enough to make it worthwhile keeping them employed.
What do you think 0 or negative interest rates are in relation to the employment? How do you think Federal reserve (with Krugman's ideology) is supposed to 'increase employment'? Do you KNOW HOW? Inflation - it means that the REAL WAGES ARE FALLING.
So the fucking gov't is printing money so that the real wages are falling, and that is what its fucking solution is - lower the wages of employees.
Well fuck me sideways, first they implement fucking retarded minimum wage laws and various welfare programs (and years of EI is also welfare) and then they want to keep people employed by lowering their real wages.
The people are not good at understanding that it's not the number on the dollar bill that counts, it is what it can buy, the equivalent purchasing power of that dollar is NOT stable, it depends on various things, but when gov't prints, it depends heavily on all that inflation, the purchasing power is destroyed by gov't.
Now, Krugman will tell you that gov't must hire and keep all sorts of people hired with all that FAKE money and taxes, and what does that do?
It doesn't allow the economy to restructure the debts it is in, that's first.
Second, it doesn't allow the economy to reduce the amount it's spending on gov't, and that amount has to be reduced. Gov't is a luxury, not an essential of some sort. The bigger the gov't the bigger the luxury, and somebody is PAYING for that luxury, and it's the productivity of the economy that is suffering.
Third, it steals purchasing power from the private sector, misallocates the resources to the public sector, and look at the trade deficits - record high trade deficits for 15 or 20 years now, right? What is it, 54 billion USD a month? That means that US economy is that unproductive, it consumes 54 Billion USD / month MORE than it produces. Why is that? Because:
Fourth, inflation destroys savings and savings are investment capital. Investment capital is destroyed by the inflation and investment capital leaves.
That's why the US is in this crisis today, it's because the dollar is fake, it's because in 1971 the dollar was defaulted on completely and since then everybody who had any savings and investment in production capacity moved their savings and investment in production capacity out of the country.
Krugman's solution? MORE OF THAT SAME THING THAT CAUSED THE DESTRUCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Yeah, and if the bail out didn't work, in Krugman's world it means it wasn't big enough.
The 800 Billion USD of bail outs? Not big enough by Krugman. He wanted it to be another 2 or 3 hundred billion. As if that would have done the trick - fixing economy with fake money doesn't work, because fake money does not equal real investments.
Real investments cannot happen with fake money, because fake money is only good for gambling and not for productive capacity, because inflation is faster than any return on any real business. That's why the bubbles are inflated and burst, the next one is in dollars and bonds.
You won't hear that from Krugman. But if you listen to that clip, you'll hear that an alien invasion would be good, because it would create fake demand. He is for a war like spending.
Krugman believes that WWII was the key to ending the Great Depression, as if all that employment making bombs a
Well yeah, he is 'ending them' in the same way that we are all eventually going to die - it's political and economic entropy that is ending them.
how Krugman's predictions on how the crisis would pan out have been so accurate if he doesn't understand any economics?
- Krugman couldn't see the crisis coming until he was already IN it, near the collapse, there (2005 and 2006) are people (2002) who predicted (2006) it and explained why it would happen in advance.
Krugman in fact WANTED a housing bubble, same as him wanting a fucking war with aliens actually, he believes destroying assets, counterfeiting money and creating bubbles is good for economics, he is a charlatan, not an economist. He is one of those 'economists' used to justify the policies of the gov't, regardless of the administration, they use him - he is 'main stream'.
Yeah, well, if they want to somehow redeem themselves, they should revoke all of the economics awards since Hayek and then they should immediately nominate Schiff and others, like Rogers - now that right there is 56 seconds worth a Nobel prize in economics and peace.
They are completely irrelevant, at least to people who understand that this is all politics and nothing else. Obama has gotten his for 'peace' and Krugman has gotten his for 'economics'. More so called 'economists' have gotten theirs, with their only contributions being that they support the status quo. They insist that counterfeiting fiat currency supports the bubble economies (of-course that's not what they call it), and they see this as a positive and give governments the green light justifications to print and spend more money when in fact counterfeiting must stop and governments must shrink to fix the economies. You will never hear this from the 'economists' who get their Nobel prizes, not since Hayek has gotten his. Nobel prize is irrelevant, it's a political tool and nothing else.
They are NOT Randian, they are just doing business. They never had the money before to care about the issue, now, in my case, I moved my business before I started making any real money with it (as a contractor I was doing well for myself, but I didn't want to have the business stuck in a system where taxes and regulations are absurd). I don't call myself 'Randian' either, I am a libertarian, these days closer to an anarchist, she was not.
Yes, my point is that the users are the ones making this choice that they don't care about free and or open source software and they represent the majority of this market and that's why closed source software exists and sells and that's why there are no applications that he specifically wants being free and or open source.
I don't fully understand his position, I am not sure what his point is actually. Is that that closed source software is bad? Well, majority of users disagree. Is it that there are not enough open and free source applications? Well, clearly, that's because majority of the users don't care.
This is all about the market and few people who want this particular feature in their software don't represent a large enough market segment for this to happen.
And this story is about a company that is looking for a way out of that messed up government system, that forces people to give up their earnings, as if they are actual possessions of the government.
Finland is losing the companies now, in the global world, they will lose their gravy train of having a closed system of monopolies created by the government, as more and more is outsourced elsewhere, as the capital searches for ways to make things cheaper and make more profit, and the socialist welfare system that was overtaxing the population will collapse and I am going to enjoy watching it collapse if I am not dead in the next 10-15 years.
Infrastructure is done by the private market that is interested in profit, that's how USA got its infrastructure when it truly was the innovator, was truly increasing its wealth by building up production capacity, becoming world's largest producer and exporter and creditor nation... all without any income or payroll or corporate or any type of wealth taxes and mostly without government at all (1870 - 1913).
Public healthcare is none of government's business, it's a private business, just like all others. Gov't involvement only destroys the healthcare over time, I am expecting to see all gov't ran types of health care to fail within the next 10 years.
Education - what a joke. Years and years (12 for USA?) of this subsidised 'education' that wastes all this human capital. The students that come out of it are so worthless that the gov't then steps in again, and after all the taxes that were paid for this worthless education (made worthless by gov't money and gov't economic and fiscal policy), then the gov't uses taxes to subsidise the minimum wage (minimum wage is a tax, it prevents many people from working, prevents many jobs from existing and creates an imbalance in huge number of cases where the costs and prices are pushed up artificially, where the free market would have those costs much lower, the consumer and the economy end up being hurt by this).
After all of this nonsense 'public education', the students who come out are so worthless they can't legitimately find jobs that are ABOVE the artificial level of the minimum wage, and so the people who subsidised them for 12 years end up subsidising them even further, and all so that what? So that there is a pretence that there is some worthwhile public education system? So that there is a voting block of those, who are basically on a gov't dole as welfare recipients (whether directly from welfare or from ever lasting EI or this minimum wage nonsense).
All of this so that some people who think they are 'progressives' can keep believing that they are doing something useful and good in the world while the reality is that there is a huge number of people in politics and some big business benefiting from all of this resource misallocation?
Here is a form of resource misallocation, a form of welfare for the special interests.
There are 7 witnesses in that Congressional hearing, 6 of them are special interests who want your money, one of them represents the actual tax payers, guess who is being listened to?