You are absolutely correct in that comparison, both a BitCoin and a $20 bill are worth nothing at all in themselves. The only difference is that a very large portion of the population still exchanges in $ and the reasons for it are even more amazing than the reasons for the current BitCoin valuation, they are more historically interesting in any case. The reasons for the BitCoin valuation are actually tangentially tied to the reasons for $ valuation.
As for gold, it's a commodity and it's money in itself, it does not need to be measured in any other form of fiat or money to be money. I will exchange for goods whether anybody else counts it for money or not.
It's interesting that the title of this piece is 'One Bitcoin is Now Worth More Than One Ounce of Gold'. I have some gold, I would not exchange it for BitCoins regardless of what they are 'worth'. The sense of worth is a funny thing, I don't feel that Bitcoins are worth anything, they are valueless from my point of view.
If a war started today and there was a shortage of food, if somebody gave me a USB stick with 10 Bitcoins on it I would not exchange it for food I think. I might exchange it for gold though. What is 'worth' and how do you figure that a Bitcoin is actually 'worth' anything? It is a unique electronic number.... to me it is worth 0. Sure, I can make or lose money buying Bitcoin and reselling it at some point later as a speculative vehicle but to say that I would store some 'worth' in them... I would not.
Sure, and it will continue as long as the banks are bailed out in case of failure, so under those conditions it only makes sense to trade on emotion and to gamble as much as possible. It's heads I win, tails you lose scenario, so wall street is not off their rocker, they are quite rational.
when wall street will come to their senses on these sorts of tech bubble stocks
- they are well within their senses.
The problem is that they have no yield in anything else, so they are searching for yield. The yield is gone however, that's because the government destroyed it, annihilated it completely. That's because the government needs cheap borrowing, if the interest rates were anywhere near their historical normals, the USA government couldn't continue to exist even if it had to pay that type of interest (never mind paying back the actual principal)
The government together with the Fed have destroyed the yield curve on the one hand, on the other hand they money for speculation is flowing due to the same Fed and policies that provide the cheap money flow. The banks and mutual funds, the pension funds, municipal, State, private, they are all looking for yield.
Instead of finding a legitimate source of yield in some legitimate business, they are pushed into gambling on stocks, into a giant casino and this casino is the market that is manipulated by the fake interest rates, fake money supply and various other factors that the government is responsible for.
To ask the question this way: 'when will the wall street come to its senses' is pointless, it misses the point that the wall street never had any senses except for one: where is the yield. For the lack of better options the yield does not come from legitimate business borrowing (legitimate businesses cannot borrow with 0% interest rates, their borrowing is much more expensive than that, why would a bank lend to a legitimate business the money that it knows could be spent in a giant casino that promised much better gambling returns and besides if the bank loses the money the government will bail it out).
The government under Obamatron (and many times before him) has made it abundantly clear: you can lose all the money you like, we WILL bail you out.
So when will the wall street come to its senses? It is well within its senses.
Well yes, people are dirty slimy pussy bloody hairy pussy shitty animals after all. So are all other living creatures. Staying away from all bodies of water is a good idea if contact with all that bothers one.
First thing you have to realise is that Systems Exist. Systems follow very specific laws. The first Law of Systems is that all Systems follow the Law of Self Preservation. The second Law of Systems is that all Systems Fight Against Change within themselves. Systems follow the Law of Structural Conformity. Systems follow the Law of Growth and Development.
1. Systems Exist. 2. Systems Preserve Themselves. 3. Systems Fight Against Change Within. 4. Systems Ensure Structural Conformity. 5. Systems Grow and Develop.
All of these laws of Systems exist only to protect the Systems from being destroyed. Systems do not care about innovation or quality, they care to grow, to protect themselves from change that can cause self destruction, they ensure that all of their internal structures are organized to ensure self preservation, they grow just to become bigger and to have a better chance of survival.
Once you understand this you will understand why it is obvious and expected that systems prevent any type of innovation coming from individuals within the system.
It is also important to understand one more thing: when systems cannot cope with something, they stop it, they may destroy it, but if the fundamentals upon which the system relies are themselves flawed, the system reliance on those fundamentals also makes those systems ultimately vulnerable to destruction.
I think all employers should be sued for hiring and for firing people as well as for not hiring women or not hiring men, for firing women or for firing men, for hiring / firing that goes against feelings of some, for hiring / firing that goes alone the lines of feelings of some...
Employers in the USA must be really masochistic to continue hiring people, anybody at all, not even just women. Of-course to hire a woman or any other protected class for that matter you have to really have your head checked. Of-course if you do not hire them in some quantity, the government will attack you on that basis.
So you have to hire them and then you have to bear the blunt of the lawsuit your choices are very unpleasant. Hire the women and get a lawsuit. Don't hire the women and get a lawsuit.
That type of a choice is not a choice at all, I give you the third option: don't hire in the USA.
Oh no! All the people whose job description is to be 6 feet tall, to lift 100 pounds, to jump 4feet into the air and to be able to travel at 9 miles per hour are no longer economically viable...
Time to upgrade that resume. Skills: can lift up to 101 pound jump 4 feet 5 inches into the air. Can travel at 9.5 miles her hour. Will cost no more 10% of a robot doing the same thing a year. A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge!
collectivism isn't theft. property is an illusion anyway
- so is collectivism not theft *or* is property an illusion? AFAIC property is a fact and it starts with your own body, so this nonsense is just that - nonsense:
you belong to nature and it will reclaim you one day.
- the chemicals, molecules and atoms I am made of are as much 'me' as any number of notes thrown together into a hole in a ground is an opera.
*You* are not just water and trace chemical elements you are made of, you do not belong to anybody. You are an entity that was organized into existence via a complex procedure that took billions of years + 9 months and whatever your age is and everything you have experienced since you were conceived and until the moment you die.
Once you die the corpse that is left after is no longer *you*, it's an empty vessel that can no longer be you, you are gone and definitely are not a possession of anybody.
You may want to rethink that dumbass ideology of yours, it's idiotic.
Single payer in Canada costs about half as much than multiple payer healthcare in the US,
- let me put it this way: I do not care what it 'costs', the real question is *who pays*. Nobody should be *forced* to pay for anybody else.
while yielding better overall outcomes.
- let me put it this way: I do not care about 'overall outcomes', I only care about 1 outcome and that outcome is related to myself. The 'overall outcome' never comes into the picture, it's irrelevant and it's completely misleading.
The only question that matters is this: if you need healthcare can you get it by paying for it without anybody else forcing you to do anything else or to pay for anybody else. All these other considerations are destruction of individual freedoms and destruction of quality in healthcare and they are *not* reducing the cost to those who are paying the large share of it. Nobody should be forced to pay for other people's healthcare and nobody should be prevented (as is done in Canada) from buying healthcare out of pocket.
every one else has to sell themselves into permanent lifetime servitude just to temporarily use their product
- if you feel that an Intel processor is worth selling yourself into slavery then you really must need that processor, don't you? Even then you are getting something out of the transaction that is beneficial for you, otherwise why would you sell yourself????????????
The mainstream 'economists' and the Federal reserve and the government disagree with you. They will tell you that bringing prices down will cause you to stop shopping because you will expect further price cuts instead of buying what you *need* now (even if you buy on credit, which means that the final price is much higher, which completely undermines their idiotic claims). But didn't you hear the official party line? 2% inflation is good. 0% inflation is bad. Because the Fed is supposed to provide a dual mandate of fucking you in the ass while coming in your mouth.
There is no such line for a thief-collectivist that you are replying to. He will not rest until the company is making precisely enough to stay open for 1 hour in case people stopped buying the current product.
Gouging? What the hell is gouging? Competition brings the prices down as long as competition can exist without subsidies of any kind. Once the competitor is no longer profitable the prices are at the lowest possible level (given the modern state of technology, laws, taxes, inflation levels and such).
But what the hell is 'gouging'? You are free to try and sell your wares (or your labour for that matter) for any price at all and if there is somebody buying then they see value in that. The people who are buying, the paying customers are not being gouged, they wouldn't purchase the service or the product if it was not beneficial to them to fork out whatever the price is because the product would provide them with more benefit than the cash they paid for it.
But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.
- what 'practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon'? You might as send whalers to the Moon, it's about as practical as anything else.
If it is about observations people are not necessary, robots transporting and serving telescopes would not do worse than a meat bag who needs perfect human liveable environment to survive.
Japan's problem is their inability to let the failures go down in flames and fail for the good of the rest of the economy and of the society.
Japan is the place were you go to when you want to get funny money for trading/shorting, that's the place you go to borrow Yen to do all this insane trading. Japan is the place of the suicide economic policy, the kamikaze of policies (the one that USA is also following), the policy destroying the currency for the purpose of bailing out horrible failures just to keep them going due to political expediency and not due to any form of sound economics at all.
This in turn leads to economic stagnation, falling birth rates, depression, etc. All the good stuff that the central bankers together with the government love to give its people.
I want to sue all the governments for interfering in my life. This of-course means I want to sue all of you for interfering in my life. Of-course my resources are vastly inadequate for this, but I would love to do just that. I do not want this government 'protection' (read interference and oppression) to exist. But I do feel this is probably going to happen anyway. Need a new planet / new world of some sort without all this in it.
Maybe a month ago I was talking with my developers about this very thing and I did hear some uneasinnese in their voices, some fear of the future job prospects. However I explained that this is exciting if at all possible. This would not replace the developer, it would make a developer quite a bit more productive though, allowing for the business requirements to be implemented much faster.
Say you are working on a large use case, you put together the data model, maybe most of the DDL, some front end work, maybe the HTML components (if web based). Now you want to connect the data to the presentation. So bring up the AI, tell it the data validation requirements while pointing at the fields on the screen and pointing at the database fields. It should fill in the validation routines and the code that connects it all while following the project standards for security checks, transaction handling, basically generating the missing code.
The developer would provide the end points and describe the behaviour with human language/pointing at things while describing this, the AI would provide a number of solutions to choose from.
The AI should keep track of test cases based on the description, provide a test suit. It should keep an eye on the code base at all times to notice what it can do for the developer and propose it whenever it sees the opportunity, etc.
Would this put developers out of jobs? I think it would make developers much more productive, allowing for many more projects to be created and tested. The AI should help integrating components, keep track of configurations, do more testing on all levels (functional, security, load, etc). The projects should be churned out faster and with a higher quality, while more ideas would have a chance to be tried out as projects.
Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground
- I don't see the difference, how I start is irrelevant. The relevant factor here is your government provided education and it has done the job.
What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?
- the only way to consume something is to produce something of your own and to exchange for what you are interested in consuming. Thus the people who can actually consume something are those very people that produce. This should be obvious even to you with a simple example: a farmer produces and then consumes what he produced. Got it? A farmer can exchange with a tool maker if the tool maker provides farmer with the tools the farmer needs and the tool maker clearly needs to eat. Etc.
It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself.
- consumption by itself is irrelevant, you are correct however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.
only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company
- really? Are you an accountant for one of the Chinese companies? I actually deal with Chinese manufacturers for GPS trackers and other electronics, you are incorrect.
I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft
- I deduced it from the first principles. If you are wondering though, I went to the most communist school of all, I was born in the USSR and attended the public education system there. I was happy to see the country collapse of-course since it only confirmed my understanding of economics.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.
Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).
Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services. USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.
1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.
He is saying what he believes but you are right, what he believes is trolling. The most powerful tro11ing is the trolling against the common sense and against individual freedom and it has been done over and over again under the flag of justice for all, brotherhood, motherland and other similar concepts that define a group that the masses can feel they belong to. Defining this group requires internalization of ideas, internalization is the key word, it means thoughtless acceptance and the base point to fall back to when rationality and reasoning drive you to the point of internal conflict, to an internal contradiction.
Once any contradictions caused by inconsistencies in reasoning against your own position are dismissed and the base point is established the work of the 'educator' is done. The person is ready to become a fully integrated member of the group.
The group can then be directed and used to increase the power of the governing elite within the system, with the messaging being so out of touch with the actual reality that no rationally thinking individual could mistake the message for any form of truth, but the group simply falls back to the base point and carries the message anyway, providing the power to the government that is needed to crush any form of dissent.
In its cohesive entirety I consider this to be the ultimate form of tro11ing, the trolling by the group against any form of reason and rationality, the trolling that requires fundamental denial of any form of individualism and of independent thought.
Right, so what we have shown here is that wars and collectivism is the way to destroy wealth. Destroying wealth should not be the goal though if you want a wealthy society. Inequality is not the issue, it never was and never will be the real issue. The real issue is destruction of individual freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
You are absolutely correct in that comparison, both a BitCoin and a $20 bill are worth nothing at all in themselves. The only difference is that a very large portion of the population still exchanges in $ and the reasons for it are even more amazing than the reasons for the current BitCoin valuation, they are more historically interesting in any case. The reasons for the BitCoin valuation are actually tangentially tied to the reasons for $ valuation.
As for gold, it's a commodity and it's money in itself, it does not need to be measured in any other form of fiat or money to be money. I will exchange for goods whether anybody else counts it for money or not.
That's all good and stuff but how did little Bobby Tables end up working at an AWS data centre in the first place?
It's interesting that the title of this piece is 'One Bitcoin is Now Worth More Than One Ounce of Gold'. I have some gold, I would not exchange it for BitCoins regardless of what they are 'worth'. The sense of worth is a funny thing, I don't feel that Bitcoins are worth anything, they are valueless from my point of view.
If a war started today and there was a shortage of food, if somebody gave me a USB stick with 10 Bitcoins on it I would not exchange it for food I think. I might exchange it for gold though. What is 'worth' and how do you figure that a Bitcoin is actually 'worth' anything? It is a unique electronic number.... to me it is worth 0. Sure, I can make or lose money buying Bitcoin and reselling it at some point later as a speculative vehicle but to say that I would store some 'worth' in them... I would not.
Sure, and it will continue as long as the banks are bailed out in case of failure, so under those conditions it only makes sense to trade on emotion and to gamble as much as possible. It's heads I win, tails you lose scenario, so wall street is not off their rocker, they are quite rational.
when wall street will come to their senses on these sorts of tech bubble stocks
- they are well within their senses.
The problem is that they have no yield in anything else, so they are searching for yield. The yield is gone however, that's because the government destroyed it, annihilated it completely. That's because the government needs cheap borrowing, if the interest rates were anywhere near their historical normals, the USA government couldn't continue to exist even if it had to pay that type of interest (never mind paying back the actual principal)
The government together with the Fed have destroyed the yield curve on the one hand, on the other hand they money for speculation is flowing due to the same Fed and policies that provide the cheap money flow. The banks and mutual funds, the pension funds, municipal, State, private, they are all looking for yield.
Instead of finding a legitimate source of yield in some legitimate business, they are pushed into gambling on stocks, into a giant casino and this casino is the market that is manipulated by the fake interest rates, fake money supply and various other factors that the government is responsible for.
To ask the question this way: 'when will the wall street come to its senses' is pointless, it misses the point that the wall street never had any senses except for one: where is the yield. For the lack of better options the yield does not come from legitimate business borrowing (legitimate businesses cannot borrow with 0% interest rates, their borrowing is much more expensive than that, why would a bank lend to a legitimate business the money that it knows could be spent in a giant casino that promised much better gambling returns and besides if the bank loses the money the government will bail it out).
The government under Obamatron (and many times before him) has made it abundantly clear: you can lose all the money you like, we WILL bail you out.
So when will the wall street come to its senses? It is well within its senses.
Well yes, people are dirty slimy pussy bloody hairy pussy shitty animals after all. So are all other living creatures. Staying away from all bodies of water is a good idea if contact with all that bothers one.
First thing you have to realise is that Systems Exist.
Systems follow very specific laws. The first Law of Systems is that all Systems follow the Law of Self Preservation. The second Law of Systems is that all Systems Fight Against Change within themselves. Systems follow the Law of Structural Conformity. Systems follow the Law of Growth and Development.
1. Systems Exist.
2. Systems Preserve Themselves.
3. Systems Fight Against Change Within.
4. Systems Ensure Structural Conformity.
5. Systems Grow and Develop.
All of these laws of Systems exist only to protect the Systems from being destroyed. Systems do not care about innovation or quality, they care to grow, to protect themselves from change that can cause self destruction, they ensure that all of their internal structures are organized to ensure self preservation, they grow just to become bigger and to have a better chance of survival.
Once you understand this you will understand why it is obvious and expected that systems prevent any type of innovation coming from individuals within the system.
It is also important to understand one more thing: when systems cannot cope with something, they stop it, they may destroy it, but if the fundamentals upon which the system relies are themselves flawed, the system reliance on those fundamentals also makes those systems ultimately vulnerable to destruction.
I think all employers should be sued for hiring and for firing people as well as for not hiring women or not hiring men, for firing women or for firing men, for hiring / firing that goes against feelings of some, for hiring / firing that goes alone the lines of feelings of some...
Employers in the USA must be really masochistic to continue hiring people, anybody at all, not even just women. Of-course to hire a woman or any other protected class for that matter you have to really have your head checked. Of-course if you do not hire them in some quantity, the government will attack you on that basis.
So you have to hire them and then you have to bear the blunt of the lawsuit your choices are very unpleasant. Hire the women and get a lawsuit. Don't hire the women and get a lawsuit.
That type of a choice is not a choice at all, I give you the third option: don't hire in the USA.
Oh no! All the people whose job description is to be 6 feet tall, to lift 100 pounds, to jump 4feet into the air and to be able to travel at 9 miles per hour are no longer economically viable...
Time to upgrade that resume.
Skills: can lift up to 101 pound jump 4 feet 5 inches into the air. Can travel at 9.5 miles her hour. Will cost no more 10% of a robot doing the same thing a year. A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge!
collectivism isn't theft. property is an illusion anyway
- so is collectivism not theft *or* is property an illusion? AFAIC property is a fact and it starts with your own body, so this nonsense is just that - nonsense:
you belong to nature and it will reclaim you one day.
- the chemicals, molecules and atoms I am made of are as much 'me' as any number of notes thrown together into a hole in a ground is an opera.
*You* are not just water and trace chemical elements you are made of, you do not belong to anybody. You are an entity that was organized into existence via a complex procedure that took billions of years + 9 months and whatever your age is and everything you have experienced since you were conceived and until the moment you die.
Once you die the corpse that is left after is no longer *you*, it's an empty vessel that can no longer be you, you are gone and definitely are not a possession of anybody.
You may want to rethink that dumbass ideology of yours, it's idiotic.
Single payer in Canada costs about half as much than multiple payer healthcare in the US,
- let me put it this way: I do not care what it 'costs', the real question is *who pays*. Nobody should be *forced* to pay for anybody else.
while yielding better overall outcomes.
- let me put it this way: I do not care about 'overall outcomes', I only care about 1 outcome and that outcome is related to myself. The 'overall outcome' never comes into the picture, it's irrelevant and it's completely misleading.
The only question that matters is this: if you need healthcare can you get it by paying for it without anybody else forcing you to do anything else or to pay for anybody else. All these other considerations are destruction of individual freedoms and destruction of quality in healthcare and they are *not* reducing the cost to those who are paying the large share of it. Nobody should be forced to pay for other people's healthcare and nobody should be prevented (as is done in Canada) from buying healthcare out of pocket.
every one else has to sell themselves into permanent lifetime servitude just to temporarily use their product
- if you feel that an Intel processor is worth selling yourself into slavery then you really must need that processor, don't you? Even then you are getting something out of the transaction that is beneficial for you, otherwise why would you sell yourself????????????
The mainstream 'economists' and the Federal reserve and the government disagree with you. They will tell you that bringing prices down will cause you to stop shopping because you will expect further price cuts instead of buying what you *need* now (even if you buy on credit, which means that the final price is much higher, which completely undermines their idiotic claims). But didn't you hear the official party line? 2% inflation is good. 0% inflation is bad. Because the Fed is supposed to provide a dual mandate of fucking you in the ass while coming in your mouth.
There is no such line for a thief-collectivist that you are replying to. He will not rest until the company is making precisely enough to stay open for 1 hour in case people stopped buying the current product.
Gouging? What the hell is gouging? Competition brings the prices down as long as competition can exist without subsidies of any kind. Once the competitor is no longer profitable the prices are at the lowest possible level (given the modern state of technology, laws, taxes, inflation levels and such).
But what the hell is 'gouging'? You are free to try and sell your wares (or your labour for that matter) for any price at all and if there is somebody buying then they see value in that. The people who are buying, the paying customers are not being gouged, they wouldn't purchase the service or the product if it was not beneficial to them to fork out whatever the price is because the product would provide them with more benefit than the cash they paid for it.
But good luck getting Elon Musk to focus on the practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon. He isn't interested. It's only Mars for Elon.
- what 'practical and eminently desirable target of the Moon'? You might as send whalers to the Moon, it's about as practical as anything else.
If it is about observations people are not necessary, robots transporting and serving telescopes would not do worse than a meat bag who needs perfect human liveable environment to survive.
Japan's problem is their inability to let the failures go down in flames and fail for the good of the rest of the economy and of the society.
Japan is the place were you go to when you want to get funny money for trading/shorting, that's the place you go to borrow Yen to do all this insane trading. Japan is the place of the suicide economic policy, the kamikaze of policies (the one that USA is also following), the policy destroying the currency for the purpose of bailing out horrible failures just to keep them going due to political expediency and not due to any form of sound economics at all.
This in turn leads to economic stagnation, falling birth rates, depression, etc. All the good stuff that the central bankers together with the government love to give its people.
ha ha, you are so uninformed about the world in general and Somalia specifically it's hilarious.
I want to sue all the governments for interfering in my life. This of-course means I want to sue all of you for interfering in my life. Of-course my resources are vastly inadequate for this, but I would love to do just that. I do not want this government 'protection' (read interference and oppression) to exist. But I do feel this is probably going to happen anyway. Need a new planet / new world of some sort without all this in it.
Maybe a month ago I was talking with my developers about this very thing and I did hear some uneasinnese in their voices, some fear of the future job prospects. However I explained that this is exciting if at all possible. This would not replace the developer, it would make a developer quite a bit more productive though, allowing for the business requirements to be implemented much faster.
Say you are working on a large use case, you put together the data model, maybe most of the DDL, some front end work, maybe the HTML components (if web based). Now you want to connect the data to the presentation. So bring up the AI, tell it the data validation requirements while pointing at the fields on the screen and pointing at the database fields. It should fill in the validation routines and the code that connects it all while following the project standards for security checks, transaction handling, basically generating the missing code.
The developer would provide the end points and describe the behaviour with human language/pointing at things while describing this, the AI would provide a number of solutions to choose from.
The AI should keep track of test cases based on the description, provide a test suit. It should keep an eye on the code base at all times to notice what it can do for the developer and propose it whenever it sees the opportunity, etc.
Would this put developers out of jobs? I think it would make developers much more productive, allowing for many more projects to be created and tested. The AI should help integrating components, keep track of configurations, do more testing on all levels (functional, security, load, etc). The projects should be churned out faster and with a higher quality, while more ideas would have a chance to be tried out as projects.
Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground
- I don't see the difference, how I start is irrelevant. The relevant factor here is your government provided education and it has done the job.
What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?
- the only way to consume something is to produce something of your own and to exchange for what you are interested in consuming. Thus the people who can actually consume something are those very people that produce. This should be obvious even to you with a simple example: a farmer produces and then consumes what he produced. Got it? A farmer can exchange with a tool maker if the tool maker provides farmer with the tools the farmer needs and the tool maker clearly needs to eat. Etc.
It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself.
- consumption by itself is irrelevant, you are correct however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.
only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company
- really? Are you an accountant for one of the Chinese companies? I actually deal with Chinese manufacturers for GPS trackers and other electronics, you are incorrect.
I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft
- I deduced it from the first principles. If you are wondering though, I went to the most communist school of all, I was born in the USSR and attended the public education system there. I was happy to see the country collapse of-course since it only confirmed my understanding of economics.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.
Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).
Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services. USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.
1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.
He is saying what he believes but you are right, what he believes is trolling. The most powerful tro11ing is the trolling against the common sense and against individual freedom and it has been done over and over again under the flag of justice for all, brotherhood, motherland and other similar concepts that define a group that the masses can feel they belong to. Defining this group requires internalization of ideas, internalization is the key word, it means thoughtless acceptance and the base point to fall back to when rationality and reasoning drive you to the point of internal conflict, to an internal contradiction.
Once any contradictions caused by inconsistencies in reasoning against your own position are dismissed and the base point is established the work of the 'educator' is done. The person is ready to become a fully integrated member of the group.
The group can then be directed and used to increase the power of the governing elite within the system, with the messaging being so out of touch with the actual reality that no rationally thinking individual could mistake the message for any form of truth, but the group simply falls back to the base point and carries the message anyway, providing the power to the government that is needed to crush any form of dissent.
In its cohesive entirety I consider this to be the ultimate form of tro11ing, the trolling by the group against any form of reason and rationality, the trolling that requires fundamental denial of any form of individualism and of independent thought.
Equality under law and equality in earning potential are only equivalent if you are lying to yourself and/or others around you.
Right, so what we have shown here is that wars and collectivism is the way to destroy wealth. Destroying wealth should not be the goal though if you want a wealthy society. Inequality is not the issue, it never was and never will be the real issue. The real issue is destruction of individual freedoms.