(looks like his agents have preemptively modified my previous comment, so it wouldn't link to the story correctly. I am taking another risk here, I don't particularly enjoy polonium 210). --
well, he also owns a computer, this is almost a 100% indication that he is a pedophile-terrorist, or a pedo-rist.
This is what government is for - making sure that the right people are always punished for their transgressions. That's why Jon Corzine is in charge normally, of some government and/or economic function somehow and disgusting people like Ron Paul are blacked out by the media because they challenge the status-quo.
by the way, based on the previous thread with this same user under dev235, I am just going to assume that the picture he links to is goat love, so unless you are into that kind of shit, you may want to abstain from going there.
According to local reports, the hacker used the online moniker of "Iceman." He does not have a higher education or an occupation, a DIICOT spokeswoman said.
No education and no occupation, ha?
So who is working for NASA then, that this 'no-education and no-occupation' individual is able to break into their systems?
Butyka is accused of hacking into several NASA servers over a period of time that started on Dec. 12, 2010. The authorities claim that the hacker destroyed protected data and restricted access to it. The charges brought against Butyka include obtaining unauthorized access and causing severe disruptions to a computer system, modifying, damaging and restricting access to data without authorization and possession of hacking programs.
He possess hacking programs, that means he is a terrorist. What kind of 'severe disruptions' did he cause that cost 500,000 USD?
Romanian authorities have arrested a 26-year old hacker who is accused of breaking into multiple NASA servers and causing $500,000 in damages to the U.S. space agency's systems.
- this is a bunch of nonsense.
He cost an admin a few hours of time and maybe a reinstall and reconfigure. Even at 1000USD / hour no way somebody spent 500 hours on it (that's 20.8 24 hour days) or 12.5 40 hour weeks.
does anybody sound the words out in their minds ever? Serious question: do any of you actually spell the words out phonetically in your mind while reading?
"On November 15th 1971, Intel introduced the 4004......
We canâ(TM)t find the original list price, but one source indicates that it cost around $5 to manufacture, or $26 in todayâ(TM)s money."
So the value of dollar went down by over factor of 5 since 1971.
Of-course today it wouldn't cost $26 to manufacture 4004, because the technology is so much more advanced, it would cost much less than that, but if it's true, that the cost would be $26 to manufacture one today, then the value of dollar went down even more.
Apple I cost $666.66 USD in 1976 and it was $475 in 1977. - So that's the improvement in efficiency and economy of scale allowing the drop the prices in one year by over 29%.
If the same rate of price reduction could be applied to 4004, then without inflation in today's money 4004 would have cost literally 0. With inflation it's less than 0, but that makes no sense (here is a 4004 and and over 132K USD, just take it off my hands!)
--
Our progress is being destroyed by our monetary policy.
Also don't forget all sorts of other things that are taxes, that are not called taxes. Things like that 'xmas tree tax'. What that is, is a xmas tree growers association wants to do marketing of fresh real xmas trees that are grown locally in USA, so they want to run a campaign about it so people would be more inclined to buy US grown pines.
The majority of the growers are for this campaign, because the majority are large growers and it's their business. But when they decided to implement this campaign, they found that some of the growers don't want to pay for this campaign, they don't want the campaign.
So the heads of the association went to the Federal government in order for it to pass a law, that would REQUIRE every xmas tree grower to pay 15 cents to the association so that they all would 'pitch in'. But this means it's a tax by the federal government.
The gov't didn't pass this because it doesn't look good this time around and also because this money doesn't actually go to the government, it goes to the marketing campaign (and I guess if the money doesn't go to the government, they are less inclined to pass the law).
But look at the gall of this xmas tree growing association - they want to run a campaign, they want everybody who grows more than 500 trees in USA to pay the 15 cents and in order to have this campaign, they go to the federal government to have it pass a law that would put the gun to the head of all the growers, whether they want to do it or not, to have to pay this 15 cents tax.
And it is a tax, whether the money goes to the government or not, if it's enforced by the government, it's a tax.
If you don't agree to pay it, they'll take you to the court. Then they'll force you to pay it and they'll fine you and you'll have to pay the legal fees.
If you don't go or if you decide to protect your money from being taken away, they will send the police (FBI?) after you, and if you protect yourself from them with force, they'll shoot you, and if you don't get killed, you'll still go to jail.
THAT is what taxation is all about - force by the GUN to your HEAD by the government.
Whether this is done for the benefit of a private entity (like the xmas tree growing association) or whether this is done for the supposed benefit of say retirees or medicare recipients, it doesn't matter. All that the government is, it's a gun.
It's a gun and it's pointed at your head. Are you a free person or not, that's the question. The question is not - is IRS being efficient?
With all the inflation created by the Fed to feed the ever hungry Treasury, why bother with the IRS? Here is a cost cutting for you: abolish the IRS and just keep counterfeiting. There is no difference. IRS is just a token dep't, existing for the sake of existing, today, that government only collects a small part of its expenses in taxes and borrows and prints the rest.
You KNOW the final result of this government agenda. The final result is massive inflation (maybe even hyper inflation). What difference does it make if you collect a few percentage points of your expenses in taxes, while the most of what you spend you print directly (QE) or indirectly - 0% interest at the discount window given to the banks, so they can buy US Treasuries?
USA can never repay its debt with honest money, it is going to monetize the debt and destroy the value of USD further. Since 1913 the value of USD has come down by 99%, what's the big deal about the 1 remaining percent? What's so special about it?
Since 1971 the end result was pre-determined. The fiat currencies of the world were going to come to a disgraceful end. Today in Greece they already don't bother with the fiat, people on the streets already found ways to exchange their labor and products/services by using other means of exchange, store of value and unit of account (all this to avoid the austerity imposed by the banks upon the country and to avoid the taxation.)
Greeks are doing it right.
At some point everybody else will wake up and do it right too.
That's the point of the Mint. You bring your metal and they will mint a coin for you. They can mint a coin from metal they have from collecting taxes as well, but you can request a coin to be minted from your metal. There is nothing to "lol" about there.
How about using the donated money to rent out a large mall of some sort and have a protest on its premises? Or would it be to hypocritical to protest corporations by using one as a podium?
Hey, you still didn't answer the question: how many people do you hire, how many of them generate a loss, and if you don't hire people who generate a loss just to hire them, aren't you supposed to have a burning tire on your head right now?
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
- how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to achieve the perfection of a society on this planet? I mean you believe that as an absolute ruler you'll achieve something valuable, some form of 'paradise' on this planet, but doesn't that mean that your goal is so wonderful (in your eyes) and it is so noble and so honorable and so holly almost, that anything and everything must be done to achieve it, and you can then justify any means to achieve your goal?
What if some people disagree and do not do what you want them to do, to achieve your wonderful, holly goal, will you sacrifice the lives of say 5 people?
If the goal is for the benefit of 7,000,000,000 people, will you be able to justify a sacrifice of say 1% of the population to achieve it, if they don't do what you want and go against your rule?
How about 10%, it's still the same wonderful and holly goal, do you think it may be worth the 10% sacrifice?
Maybe anything below 50%, right? But maybe your goal is so great, that it's worth the sacrifice of many more than that, after all, you are aiming for 'perfection', right? And the crowd, if it doesn't go along with your goal, they don't matter, the goal is more important.
Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov looks at this question in detail, if your goal is what you believe the ultimate goal, a goal of modifying the society and then the men will just 'change their way', because your society will be so perfect... isn't it easier to love the society, the humanity more than loving any specific individual?
How many specific individuals would you sacrifice for your perfect goal? How about 85%? 95%? 99%? Everybody except the few who are totally devoted to your goal?
Is it really such a great goal when it becomes obvious that you need to sacrifice a SINGLE life to achieve it?
Well, I know you are not 'roman_mir', because you are replying to my comment there.
The 100 Billion was produced initially, yes, but there is an actual multiplier effect, as that's the money that was not going to be consumed, but was consumed instead of being used for more production by the people who made that money.
OTOH the people who consumed it didn't offset that consumption with any production of their own, thus the multiplier effect is that 100 billion wasn't used for more production, but it was used for consumption that is unjustified with production by people who used that money to buy the goods from the Chinese.
What is lost is the opportunity of more production, had that money stayed with the original producers and the opportunity of production that the spenders would have had to do, in order to consume 333 dollars worth of goods. The Chinese get screwed in that transaction, as the people that transacted with them didn't produce anything that can be exchanged for that goods back for the Chinese goods that they bought with that money.
Here is the thing: society that loses manufacturing jobs, loses the manufacturing sector, it then pretty much loses the need for engineering, and in reality in most of realities, engineering is what drives progress forward and it even drives the need for scientific advancement forward.
So society that stops making stuff, stops thinking of stuff as well. You can't be thinking without actually producing, even though those who really build/engineer and those who do basic science are different people and working in different institutions.
Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?
There's other things you can do with money than investing into production, you can simply sit on it
- very few people with enough money to invest just sit on it, and it's proven not to be a problem in USA, out of all places, 19 century USA had a constant rate of deflation. By 1913 the USD was worth twice the amount it was worth in 1800, and so what? In that time period USA became the largest creditor nation on earth by starting most of the businesses, allowing most of the innovation and invention because there were no artificial barriers to entry imposed by a government, because government was mostly insignificant (as it is supposed to be) at the time.
Government is evil by definition, because its primary role is to occupy the power vacuum that exists without a force of that type, and so criminal organizations form to occupy that role (like in post-Soviet Russia in 1990s,) and these criminal forces just want to extract revenue from whatever companies/people that exist around simply to 'protect' them - protection racket.
(AFAIC it's actually better not to have any government and even to have this industry - protection racket, to be a competitive industry, but even though I do have this believe, I don't normally argue for it, people are not ready for that at all.)
But USA became the largest creditor nation and exporter of high quality cheap goods, increased the efficiency of US worker because of high investment capital, which is a direct contradiction of your (Keynesian) premise, that during a deflation people don't want to generate more revenue by actively investing.
People sit on their money during INFLATION, but they sit on their money the way I do for example - by owning assets that protect against inflation. I also invest into my business, but I don't trust any other business and any government, so I don't buy bonds, I don't buy stocks (with rare exception of some mining stocks). If there was deflation and SHRINKING of government, I would have been inclined to invest into production capacity because there would have been a real chance to make money due to absence of government intervention and protection of monopolies that government prefers.
Farming and mining tends to take oil and owned natural resources, both of which will require people to go into debt to acquire (at which point they're fucked again, even if they defaulted previously). Everything takes oil, unless you go back to third world methods... certainly possible, but not exactly the great future you described, back breaking work with near infirmity from physical wear and tear long before you reach pension age.
- The depression caused by the inflationary policies of the Fed caused a huge depression in 1921, but it was over quickly because government cut spending by up to 70%. By 1923 the economy was back to full employment.
I don't KNOW how much time precisely it would take to regenerate the economy, but I KNOW that the course USA is on right now is not it. Expanding the monetary supply, debt financing consumption, fighting wars, supporting the welfare state, regulating businesses out of US market, none of this helps, it all destroys the economy further.
IF it takes such a long time to redo the economy, say 2-3 decades (which I don't believe would be the case, I think it would be under 3 years), then USA is in much more trouble than I ever thought.
But what you seem to completely misunderstand is that I am not advocating something that US has a CHOICE in. There is no choice on this matter.
There is no choice. You think I am telling you: you have a choice?
No. I am telling you that you have no choice. You have no choice in how this will be fixed, it's going to be the way I described.
But you DO have a choice where it concerns the time-span within which the problem is solved. USA had a choice back during the Clinton era not to get into variable rate, short term debt and not to expand the spending of go
he promises to burn you with a tire around your neck if you don't hire people at above the rate that they would produce value at. But I asked him the question, whether he hires anybody above the amount they are worth, or anybody at all for that matter - no response. If he doesn't hire anybody like that, would he be all for burning with a tire around his neck, that's the question.
Ron Paul has huge following in universities across USA and on the web and greatest donations from US military members, that hardly qualifies his followers as people who have 'failed' all those disciplines.
The parent comment is moderated at +4 and at some point it was at +5 while my original comment that is based on understanding the problems and the fact that these problems originate from not following the US Constitutions is at -1 Troll, this just proves one thing:
The majority of people are ignorant thieves. It would be impossible to have the US Constitution if majority of people had to vote on it, because the Constitution wouldn't directly allow them to have various privileges.
Unfortunately the system today produces people who are feeling that they are entitled to have other's productive output to be stolen and given to them just because they have committed a marvelous act of 'existing'.
Slashdot Mirror
(looks like his agents have preemptively modified my previous comment, so it wouldn't link to the story correctly. I am taking another risk here, I don't particularly enjoy polonium 210).
--
Oh, also it's good to be a KGB agent and to be in the right place at the right time in history and to be absolutely willing and able to deal with the most shady elements of society to bring any attempt at a democracy to its knees.
It helps when you are a dictator, you can steal a lot of money, especially if the country is resource rich.
Oh, also it's good to be a KGB agent and to be in the right place at the right time in history and to be absolutely willing and able to deal with the most shady elements of society to bring any attempt at a democracy to its knees.
It helps when you are a dictator, you can steal a lot of money, especially if the country is resource rich.
It's universal that majority of people who make the most money in the world are the most connected people in the world.
The way to be the most connected is either by being born into the right family or by attending the right schools (which is similar to being born into the right family). It's good to become a member of some exclusive elite club while at school.
OTOH it's possible to make a lot of money while not having almost any formal education (Steve Jobs or what's his name Zuckerberg).
The above user loves goats.
well, he also owns a computer, this is almost a 100% indication that he is a pedophile-terrorist, or a pedo-rist.
This is what government is for - making sure that the right people are always punished for their transgressions. That's why Jon Corzine is in charge normally, of some government and/or economic function somehow and disgusting people like Ron Paul are blacked out by the media because they challenge the status-quo.
Also USA is sending troops to Australia. You know, in case pro-Chinese Kangaroos join Al-Qaeda.
by the way, based on the previous thread with this same user under dev235, I am just going to assume that the picture he links to is goat love, so unless you are into that kind of shit, you may want to abstain from going there.
According to local reports, the hacker used the online moniker of "Iceman." He does not have a higher education or an occupation, a DIICOT spokeswoman said.
No education and no occupation, ha?
So who is working for NASA then, that this 'no-education and no-occupation' individual is able to break into their systems?
Butyka is accused of hacking into several NASA servers over a period of time that started on Dec. 12, 2010. The authorities claim that the hacker destroyed protected data and restricted access to it. The charges brought against Butyka include obtaining unauthorized access and causing severe disruptions to a computer system, modifying, damaging and restricting access to data without authorization and possession of hacking programs.
He possess hacking programs, that means he is a terrorist. What kind of 'severe disruptions' did he cause that cost 500,000 USD?
Romanian authorities have arrested a 26-year old hacker who is accused of breaking into multiple NASA servers and causing $500,000 in damages to the U.S. space agency's systems.
- this is a bunch of nonsense.
He cost an admin a few hours of time and maybe a reinstall and reconfigure. Even at 1000USD / hour no way somebody spent 500 hours on it (that's 20.8 24 hour days) or 12.5 40 hour weeks.
This is more government nonsense.
does anybody sound the words out in their minds ever? Serious question: do any of you actually spell the words out phonetically in your mind while reading?
Yes, obviously it's a tiny number, in one thousands of one percent. It's zero for all purposes.
"On November 15th 1971, Intel introduced the 4004 ......
We canâ(TM)t find the original list price, but one source indicates that it cost around $5 to manufacture, or $26 in todayâ(TM)s money."
So the value of dollar went down by over factor of 5 since 1971.
Of-course today it wouldn't cost $26 to manufacture 4004, because the technology is so much more advanced, it would cost much less than that, but if it's true, that the cost would be $26 to manufacture one today, then the value of dollar went down even more.
Apple I cost $666.66 USD in 1976 and it was $475 in 1977. - So that's the improvement in efficiency and economy of scale allowing the drop the prices in one year by over 29%.
If the same rate of price reduction could be applied to 4004, then without inflation in today's money 4004 would have cost literally 0. With inflation it's less than 0, but that makes no sense (here is a 4004 and and over 132K USD, just take it off my hands!)
--
Our progress is being destroyed by our monetary policy.
so it's redundant?
Comes with the same territory as these obscene moderations
Oh, so the above comment is 'redundant'? Why, did anybody else make the same point in this story?
But there is no rhyme or reason to the moderation here. Lets look at some cases:
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2521666&cid=38034324 -1 Troll (opinion)
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2521666&cid=38038114 0 Flamebait - in response to this amazing proposition of violence that stays untouched by any moderation.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2521666&cid=38040890 0 Flamebait - for pointing out facts.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2521666&cid=38036472 0 Overrated - pointing out facts.
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2521666&cid=38035320 -1 Troll - pointing out facts.
Also don't forget all sorts of other things that are taxes, that are not called taxes. Things like that 'xmas tree tax'. What that is, is a xmas tree growers association wants to do marketing of fresh real xmas trees that are grown locally in USA, so they want to run a campaign about it so people would be more inclined to buy US grown pines.
The majority of the growers are for this campaign, because the majority are large growers and it's their business. But when they decided to implement this campaign, they found that some of the growers don't want to pay for this campaign, they don't want the campaign.
So the heads of the association went to the Federal government in order for it to pass a law, that would REQUIRE every xmas tree grower to pay 15 cents to the association so that they all would 'pitch in'. But this means it's a tax by the federal government.
The gov't didn't pass this because it doesn't look good this time around and also because this money doesn't actually go to the government, it goes to the marketing campaign (and I guess if the money doesn't go to the government, they are less inclined to pass the law).
But look at the gall of this xmas tree growing association - they want to run a campaign, they want everybody who grows more than 500 trees in USA to pay the 15 cents and in order to have this campaign, they go to the federal government to have it pass a law that would put the gun to the head of all the growers, whether they want to do it or not, to have to pay this 15 cents tax.
And it is a tax, whether the money goes to the government or not, if it's enforced by the government, it's a tax.
If you don't agree to pay it, they'll take you to the court. Then they'll force you to pay it and they'll fine you and you'll have to pay the legal fees.
If you don't go or if you decide to protect your money from being taken away, they will send the police (FBI?) after you, and if you protect yourself from them with force, they'll shoot you, and if you don't get killed, you'll still go to jail.
THAT is what taxation is all about - force by the GUN to your HEAD by the government.
Whether this is done for the benefit of a private entity (like the xmas tree growing association) or whether this is done for the supposed benefit of say retirees or medicare recipients, it doesn't matter. All that the government is, it's a gun.
It's a gun and it's pointed at your head. Are you a free person or not, that's the question. The question is not - is IRS being efficient?
There shouldn't be an IRS.
With all the inflation created by the Fed to feed the ever hungry Treasury, why bother with the IRS? Here is a cost cutting for you: abolish the IRS and just keep counterfeiting. There is no difference. IRS is just a token dep't, existing for the sake of existing, today, that government only collects a small part of its expenses in taxes and borrows and prints the rest.
You KNOW the final result of this government agenda. The final result is massive inflation (maybe even hyper inflation). What difference does it make if you collect a few percentage points of your expenses in taxes, while the most of what you spend you print directly (QE) or indirectly - 0% interest at the discount window given to the banks, so they can buy US Treasuries?
USA can never repay its debt with honest money, it is going to monetize the debt and destroy the value of USD further. Since 1913 the value of USD has come down by 99%, what's the big deal about the 1 remaining percent? What's so special about it?
Since 1971 the end result was pre-determined. The fiat currencies of the world were going to come to a disgraceful end. Today in Greece they already don't bother with the fiat, people on the streets already found ways to exchange their labor and products/services by using other means of exchange, store of value and unit of account (all this to avoid the austerity imposed by the banks upon the country and to avoid the taxation.)
Greeks are doing it right.
At some point everybody else will wake up and do it right too.
That's the point of the Mint. You bring your metal and they will mint a coin for you. They can mint a coin from metal they have from collecting taxes as well, but you can request a coin to be minted from your metal. There is nothing to "lol" about there.
How about using the donated money to rent out a large mall of some sort and have a protest on its premises? Or would it be to hypocritical to protest corporations by using one as a podium?
Some odd town: 40.108521,93.993434
Chemical or other plant that is using A LOT of water in the middle of the desert: 40.108521,93.993434
that is shaped like an aircraft carrier, with the 'houses' among the 'fields' located to the side that way.
Either this is a practice target aircraft carrier masked as a green field or it's some form of a cargo cult (just joking)
plenty of politicians are made of this stuff.
Hey, you still didn't answer the question: how many people do you hire, how many of them generate a loss, and if you don't hire people who generate a loss just to hire them, aren't you supposed to have a burning tire on your head right now?
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
- how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to achieve the perfection of a society on this planet? I mean you believe that as an absolute ruler you'll achieve something valuable, some form of 'paradise' on this planet, but doesn't that mean that your goal is so wonderful (in your eyes) and it is so noble and so honorable and so holly almost, that anything and everything must be done to achieve it, and you can then justify any means to achieve your goal?
What if some people disagree and do not do what you want them to do, to achieve your wonderful, holly goal, will you sacrifice the lives of say 5 people?
If the goal is for the benefit of 7,000,000,000 people, will you be able to justify a sacrifice of say 1% of the population to achieve it, if they don't do what you want and go against your rule?
How about 10%, it's still the same wonderful and holly goal, do you think it may be worth the 10% sacrifice?
Maybe anything below 50%, right? But maybe your goal is so great, that it's worth the sacrifice of many more than that, after all, you are aiming for 'perfection', right? And the crowd, if it doesn't go along with your goal, they don't matter, the goal is more important.
Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov looks at this question in detail, if your goal is what you believe the ultimate goal, a goal of modifying the society and then the men will just 'change their way', because your society will be so perfect... isn't it easier to love the society, the humanity more than loving any specific individual?
How many specific individuals would you sacrifice for your perfect goal? How about 85%? 95%? 99%? Everybody except the few who are totally devoted to your goal?
Is it really such a great goal when it becomes obvious that you need to sacrifice a SINGLE life to achieve it?
Well, I know you are not 'roman_mir', because you are replying to my comment there.
The 100 Billion was produced initially, yes, but there is an actual multiplier effect, as that's the money that was not going to be consumed, but was consumed instead of being used for more production by the people who made that money.
OTOH the people who consumed it didn't offset that consumption with any production of their own, thus the multiplier effect is that 100 billion wasn't used for more production, but it was used for consumption that is unjustified with production by people who used that money to buy the goods from the Chinese.
What is lost is the opportunity of more production, had that money stayed with the original producers and the opportunity of production that the spenders would have had to do, in order to consume 333 dollars worth of goods. The Chinese get screwed in that transaction, as the people that transacted with them didn't produce anything that can be exchanged for that goods back for the Chinese goods that they bought with that money.
Well, not all my comments end up like this
Here is a comment from "NASA Head Ignores Congress, Eyes Cooperation With China" story. (more than a year ago now)
Quote:
Here is the thing: society that loses manufacturing jobs, loses the manufacturing sector, it then pretty much loses the need for engineering, and in reality in most of realities, engineering is what drives progress forward and it even drives the need for scientific advancement forward.
So society that stops making stuff, stops thinking of stuff as well. You can't be thinking without actually producing, even though those who really build/engineer and those who do basic science are different people and working in different institutions.
Lose your manufacturing economy and you'll lose your knowledge economy, or did you think you could have the cake and eat it too?
There's other things you can do with money than investing into production, you can simply sit on it
- very few people with enough money to invest just sit on it, and it's proven not to be a problem in USA, out of all places, 19 century USA had a constant rate of deflation. By 1913 the USD was worth twice the amount it was worth in 1800, and so what? In that time period USA became the largest creditor nation on earth by starting most of the businesses, allowing most of the innovation and invention because there were no artificial barriers to entry imposed by a government, because government was mostly insignificant (as it is supposed to be) at the time.
Government is evil by definition, because its primary role is to occupy the power vacuum that exists without a force of that type, and so criminal organizations form to occupy that role (like in post-Soviet Russia in 1990s,) and these criminal forces just want to extract revenue from whatever companies/people that exist around simply to 'protect' them - protection racket.
(AFAIC it's actually better not to have any government and even to have this industry - protection racket, to be a competitive industry, but even though I do have this believe, I don't normally argue for it, people are not ready for that at all.)
But USA became the largest creditor nation and exporter of high quality cheap goods, increased the efficiency of US worker because of high investment capital, which is a direct contradiction of your (Keynesian) premise, that during a deflation people don't want to generate more revenue by actively investing.
People sit on their money during INFLATION, but they sit on their money the way I do for example - by owning assets that protect against inflation. I also invest into my business, but I don't trust any other business and any government, so I don't buy bonds, I don't buy stocks (with rare exception of some mining stocks). If there was deflation and SHRINKING of government, I would have been inclined to invest into production capacity because there would have been a real chance to make money due to absence of government intervention and protection of monopolies that government prefers.
Farming and mining tends to take oil and owned natural resources, both of which will require people to go into debt to acquire (at which point they're fucked again, even if they defaulted previously). Everything takes oil, unless you go back to third world methods ... certainly possible, but not exactly the great future you described, back breaking work with near infirmity from physical wear and tear long before you reach pension age.
- The depression caused by the inflationary policies of the Fed caused a huge depression in 1921, but it was over quickly because government cut spending by up to 70%. By 1923 the economy was back to full employment.
I don't KNOW how much time precisely it would take to regenerate the economy, but I KNOW that the course USA is on right now is not it. Expanding the monetary supply, debt financing consumption, fighting wars, supporting the welfare state, regulating businesses out of US market, none of this helps, it all destroys the economy further.
IF it takes such a long time to redo the economy, say 2-3 decades (which I don't believe would be the case, I think it would be under 3 years), then USA is in much more trouble than I ever thought.
But what you seem to completely misunderstand is that I am not advocating something that US has a CHOICE in. There is no choice on this matter.
There is no choice. You think I am telling you: you have a choice?
No. I am telling you that you have no choice. You have no choice in how this will be fixed, it's going to be the way I described.
But you DO have a choice where it concerns the time-span within which the problem is solved. USA had a choice back during the Clinton era not to get into variable rate, short term debt and not to expand the spending of go
he promises to burn you with a tire around your neck if you don't hire people at above the rate that they would produce value at. But I asked him the question, whether he hires anybody above the amount they are worth, or anybody at all for that matter - no response. If he doesn't hire anybody like that, would he be all for burning with a tire around his neck, that's the question.
Ron Paul has huge following in universities across USA and on the web and greatest donations from US military members, that hardly qualifies his followers as people who have 'failed' all those disciplines.
The parent comment is moderated at +4 and at some point it was at +5 while my original comment that is based on understanding the problems and the fact that these problems originate from not following the US Constitutions is at -1 Troll, this just proves one thing:
The majority of people are ignorant thieves. It would be impossible to have the US Constitution if majority of people had to vote on it, because the Constitution wouldn't directly allow them to have various privileges.
Unfortunately the system today produces people who are feeling that they are entitled to have other's productive output to be stolen and given to them just because they have committed a marvelous act of 'existing'.