If you actually calculated the global collective waste due to slow heavily abstracted languages running across the globe that cost is significantly than it would've been to write it properly to begin with.
- but there is another side to this coin. What if writing an application in a higher level language is not only simpler than in a lower level language, due to more variety of specialized libraries, but also produces fewer errors per some unit of code (per line or per transaction or per function, whatever)?
If this is true ( and I do think it is, that's after working in this industry since 1995), then except for having a possibly slower program, you also end up having a program, that is possibly more correct (and easier to maintain).
Now, while the program speed is important, because of how many times the application will be executed, as you say, then what about all the errors that also will be executed that many times?
What is better, having an application that is faster or having an application that is more correct and easier to maintain? Of-course it's better to have both, but that's why the underlying platform for languages like Java goes over the changes, that make it faster as time passes, and the code does not have to be rewritten, it can stay the same really.d
Currency only has any value as long as it is accepted by people for exchange for goods and services, it can be inflated (its supply can be increased) and it can be deflated (its supply can be decreased, usually by the issuer buying the currency back for whatever assets from people).
But there is one catch.
While currency is inflated, but people still do not feel that they are rapidly losing purchasing power in it (feeling is different from reality btw), the currency will still be in circulation, used for exchange.
But once the people decide en mass that the currency is actually worthless, at that point it is impossible to give the currency ANY value back by just the issuer buying it back. At that point it absolutely will not matter if most of that currency is removed from the market, nobody will want it regardless if even just 1 unit of it is left in the market. If its perceived as worthless, it stays worthless.
What I understand about you, is that you like being a populist, you like the crowd that it gathers, like any old narcissist, you like being center of attention and to be the 'speaker of the people'. It is clear though, that underneath that cover there is a control freak, that would not hesitate, if given the opportunity, to turn the opposition into dust, I bet you'd have your own Gitmo to throw anybody you do not personally approve of into. Your kind is in power in socialist states, that's certain.
I think there is something off with the story, it sounds as if it's written by a female, and I know I know, that's doubly ridiculous, given the kind of the subject brought up in TFS. But to answer the question about the admins laughing there, I think an important missing bit of info.
So, anonymous poster, are you, or have you ever been accused of not being a male?
if somebody wanted to do something to that pawn, why would he/she be announcing this ahead of time on a site? However if they outlaw thoughts of that nature, then only the outlaws will have those thoughts.
good. Now solve the next important world's mysteries: who are the 2 chicks in the Internets tubes (except for 2g1c) and how is driving or flying a DeLorean at 88MPH help it to move through time back and forward.
Oh, and if you can go ahead and do this by tomorrow, I have an important meeting I will need to provide this information at.
What you missed is what I said: function of a market.
In Scotland there was a market for more education, thus all sorts of schools were started. Any 'public' offering was actually started by churches, and it definitely didn't require government intervention. Most other schools were started privately and there was enough competition between schools that prices were low enough for a large number of students to attend.
The USA is still the largest economy in the world. It got that way through its education system, which, for all its faults, produces enough smart people and innovators and potentially-trainable employees for the market.
- I disagree with the premise. On paper of government statisticians, USA has the 'largest economy' in the world. I disagree with their accounting practices. USA is far behind China and likely Japan and Germany AFAIC, because you have to count the inflation levels and the type of manufacturing that is done. USA has weapons manufacturing, but the rest is mostly assembly of parts brought from other countries. There is no need for highly educated workforce in USA, that's why there are so many lawyers: too many people start in humanities and then by the end, not knowing where to go, they switch to the next 'closest' thing - law.
This has anything with the question at hand, why exactly?
- end result is the only thing that counts.
Limited liability means nothing, life is not whatever insane libertarian utopia you think it is, companies will find every single way to get out of paying. Since they have more power than those suing them they are much better at doing it. Destroying evidence, intimidation, legal chaff, payed off experts and so on and so on.
- large corporations can do more than small businesses, but in the world of government regulated business and government printing money there are too many large corporations created by the governments in the first place.
Of course, you fail to realize that suing someone is dependent on a government. For both the underlying legal system, judicial system to arbitrate and enforcement of the judgment.
- nope. Justice systems rely on trust of public to the judges, and there is more and more evidence that government judges cannot be trusted because they have government agenda. Justice system does not need government at all - it needs competition, like everything else does.
If they can find out who did it ($$$), prove who did it ($$$) and then manage to sue them successfully ($$$). History has showed that companies are very good at getting out of such problems by use of superior money reserves. Landowners often sue corporations for damaging their land, they often lose. That is fact, your own insane view of reality is not.
- landowners lose to corporations because corporations have overwhelming power in the world of government meddling with economy and regulating businesses.
As to finding who did what - in a world without government helping out corporations, there would be an opportunity for a business (or a few), specializing in finding out these exact things and putting together a lawsuit.
You said companies are making recycling programs of their own volition. They are not. Laws are making them do that. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said by shifting the argument.
- first of all, I did not anywhere say that today companies make recycling programs on their own. Some might, some might not, I cannot speak for every corporation, so don't put words into my mouth.
Secondly, the only problem is the person who does the dumping of whatever illegally on other people's property, this is a private matter, government has nothing to do with it.
So you mean you have to pick up a gun and attack the entity doing the dumping? After all, without the government that is your only alternative.
- why, is government standing there on your property, protecting you from all bad things and waiting for the bad guys with guns? This is a nonsense argument.
Prove it, history has showed that the natural state for corporation is to grow into giant monopolies. Without a government, the corporation will become governments.
- nonsense. Without government power corporations have competition. What do I have to prove? AT&T? US banks? US insurance companies? US agriculture corporations? US food manufacturers? US energy producers? US education? US military? What do I have to prove, that is not immediately clear to you?
Corporations will then either unanimously succeed in proving they are doing no harm, good luck proving otherwise without going bankrupt. The alternative is that all corporations will all be sued into oblivion and thus destroy the economy. The government provides a system that keeps either extreme from happening.
- nonsense. Government has only one interest: grow monopolies that are too large ('to fail') and then collect as much money from them as possible, be it through taxes or be it through some other 'contributions'.
When you talk of corporations, you do mean the large entities, t
- you don't understand the meaning of the word. The word means: "by decree" basically. It means "by law".
Gold does not need to be declared money, as I said, people who understand what money is see and use it as money - store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. Governments cannot change this fact.
No, actually, I am worried about the number of resources we would waste trying to extract every last gram of gold from the ground, and the number of people who would devote their lives to mining this gold*, and possibly get killed in the process.
- how is that any more of a problem than any other production? People get killed working in paper mills, do we stop using paper?
You seem to be assuming that the fed is out to get you.
- the fed is out to get you, me they can't get, I don't buy into their 'product'. You see, Fed is very vocal about 'supporting the economy' by the means of creating inflation. That's their goal - to keep up the valuations of failed businesses, of banks, of housing market, and of the US bond prices. To do so they print USD and they flood the market with it in ways that supports those valuations.
Of-course all of those things actually need to be crashed in prices, that is why in real terms (gold), these things are falling in prices in a hurry. The problem for you is that while in real terms those things fall in prices, in nominal terms they stay within their current price range, which means that for the real terms to fall in prices, the prices of other things must rise in nominal terms.
Thus you get the Fed being there out to get you with higher prices for everything that matters: food, energy, clothes, etc.
Why is it "rational" to have the value of currency determined by how much shiny can be dug up, to have equipment and people dedicated to something that produces no value (digging up gold we don't need), but irrational to simply have a policy determined by someone who is an expert on the economy?
- on the contrary. Gold we do need, people understand it, there is real value in gold. But never mind gold, we need things, and that can be anything - from food to energy to other minerals.
But when you argue that people should not be 'dedicated' to doing meaningless work, you are correct. Except that you don't see that the real problem with meaningless work is the work that produces something but does nothing for the person who is producing it. And when you get paid in money that is worth nothing (or very little, and less with each day), then your labor did go into nothing.
OTOH if you produce something and you get paid with what people have considered real money, regardless of what governments say - they actually can use that in real markets to exchange for real goods and they know that they will keep their purchasing power (or as in case with depressions, as one is happening right now, their purchasing power will grow in fact).
Also your faith in 'experts in economy' is quite misplaced. I see the government economists for what they are - charlatans and witch doctors. They are the modern day shamans, running the show for the kings.
Experts? The other day Bernanke said: nobody could see the collapse of 2008 coming. Well,:) I am a nobody then, and he can go to hell.
sure, they were improvements alright. They improved the chances of politicians to grow their government power, to have bigger offices with more staff in them, to stay in power forever and to build a government empire on the backs of actual producers, who are in China now. If you count that as an improvement that is.
any demand that is created by money that is printed is artificial, so when I say 'artificial', I mean the demand that is not coming out of legitimate savings and production, but demand that will disappear as government will no longer be able to print the currency (for whatever reason, most likely the crash of the currency and the bond market).
Without a logical argument to support this statement, it is merely a religious conviction.
- you need to be explicitly told everything? No time for thinking is allowed, yes?
It's called staying in power, which in case of government is bought with promises to do things for the mob, and those promises must be paid for, but since nobody likes taxes, the promises get 'paid' for with inflation via the printing press. This is the tax upon all of our fiat denominated savings, not just your new income, which is also going to be taxed (unconstitutionally as well, in case of USA).
Money printing is the logical outcome of politicians having that power, and they should not be given that power. Now do I have to explain why?
You have not shown any evidence to discredit the well developed ideas of the economists you dismiss
- I have shown it plenty of times on this forum alone. The 'well developed' ideas of the 'economists' you wish to stick with (be my guest, by the way, it's your money that's going down the drain every day you misdiagnose the problem,) cannot explain simplest things, starting from inflation, to the causes of the prices going up. They can't explain how their own policies lead to the asset bubbles being inflated and they cannot see one that's huge, that's being inflated right now - the US bond bubble. They think it's fine to buy their own debt with printed money, they think it's fine to subsidize banks and even other central banks with the money ('currency swaps', they call it,) so that there is still a simulation of some demand in the market for US debt, which is all they have left up their sleeves, now that their "well developed" ideas have pushed all investment capital out of their countries and to places that like owning production capacity as means to feed themselves.
So with all these economists, who are all for government intervention, anything from money printing to minimum wage laws, to labor unions working for the government, to the ponzi scheme of SS and Medicare taxes and payouts, which are not based on any investment, but are purely money transfer and debt, to their stance on providing loans to people for consumption and not production, to their ideas that government needs to be involved in 'creating jobs', even if that's literally digging and filling up ditches (I mean, I actually heard the idiot Krugman say that on a radio show)... All these 'economists' are witch doctors, and you can stick with them.
I am going to stick with my ideas, which kept my purchasing power over the years from these monsters.
forty of the most peaceful years the world has ever known
- hhhmmmmm. And people wonder why the world sees US as a freaking monster. 40 peaceful years? No Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, those don't matter though, I know, they are not American.
Should we just let them starve? Capitalism says yes, socialism says no
- free market capitalism wouldn't waste resources like that, that's just stupid.
These people would have jobs if government wasn't preventing them from having those jobs by driving capital investment out of the country, by destroying the value of the currency, by regulating businesses till all competition is destroyed and only the government preferred monopolies stay in power.
Since when is the government + monopolies government creates is capitalism? It's fascism.
Aside from distorting the market for gold, pining the value of federal reserve notes to a weight of gold limited the Federal Reserve Bank's ability to influence the money supply.
- which is good, no government institution should be influencing money supply, and if you say that the Fed is not a government institution, then you have to show me one time, when the Fed went against the desire of the government to monetize their debt.
As Scott Sumner has demonstrated, not addressing a shortage in the money supply contributed greatly to the Great Depression.
- as I said, all these economists, pushing the government agenda are charlatans, shamans and witch doctors. That position on the Great Depression alone puts this guy into the 'witch doctor' camp - no matter how much money government prints and hands out it's never enough.
Great depression was caused by US government propping up UK pound and then, once the asset bubble created out of the inflated money supply burst, the government started with all sorts of stimulus packages and bail outs, all of which did worse damage than even the original money printing that inflated the asset bubble, I provided a few details about it here.
The 1921 depression took under 2 years to resolve because government did nothing to try and save anybody from it and in fact Harding cut spending by near 70%, but Hoover decided he was going to 'fix' the problem, so what he ended up with was the Great Depression and then FDR didn't help either. Great Depression ended when government finally stopped with the spending after the WWII ended, and as US had a monopoly on production at the time, for reasons that everybody else was destroyed, US labor was able to command a formidable wage, which allowed a high-school drop out to support a family of four with a stay at home wife, own a couple of houses and a few cars, have all sorts of vacations, pay for medical and education expenses totally out of pocket and do all of that with a smile and without any debt.
- you are worried about 'ramping up' gold production for inflation reasons, but you would rather stay with fiat, which we know can be printed until they run out of trees, and then they would just add more zeros to a computer stored bank account?
- doesn't sound so paleolithic when quoted fully now, does it, you freaking troll?
And Fukushima was. So was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Texas City Refinery explosion. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Three Mile Island accident. Bhopal disaster. Seveso disaster. Minamata disaster. Cuyahoga River fire. Your point?
- WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Your point?
Who actually kills more people in their chase for money, is it government or is it a private company?
Now, certainly, there are problem in everything, but governments by many orders of magnitude are killing and hurting more people than any private business ever could, and private businesses, for the absence of government intervention at least are working on bringing something useful to the economy, while governments are by design destructive to it.
You can quite seriously write pages and pages and pages on all the ways companies cut corners to save money. Then lied about it or covered it up. They generally only stopped once the government put it's fist down.
- that's perfectly fine, companies should try and save money. If they do so and cause accidents that hurt people, they should be sued and there shouldn't be government guaranteed liability limit to how much you can sue a business owner or a manager, so there is the real problem of negligent companies: governments provide them with the incentive to be negligent via "limited liability" status granted to the corporations by governments.
We don't do those things because the government mandates it and enforces those laws. Companies are forced to do those things. They hardly do them of their own volition.
- and all that is needed is for people to actually own their property, rather than thinking that government owns it, so any piece of property needs an owner, who will care about what is happening on his property and be able to defend it in court.
As to the mandates not to dump oil and car batteries - actually this is about the private citizens, customers of the companies, it's really a mandate on the customers whether they can or cannot just dump oil all over the place. If somebody tries to dump their shit on your property, it's really between them and you, and has nothing to do with government.
They hardly do them of their own volition. Left on their own companies will in fact dump oil into rivers and chuck car batteries into the nearest landfill.
- that's another problem of not having actual owners of the land, and when government "owns" it, that's basically the reason it even can act as somebody who sets the rules on his land. If government is the owner of the land, then of-course it has the ability to pass laws and protect that land, but the point is that government shouldn't own any assets, so anybody dumping anything into anywhere, that can leak into common resource, like a river, will have to deal with the consequences with others, who own part of the land that river goes through for example. Same with air pollution: you pollute the air and it doesn't actually stay within the boundaries of your property and crosses into mine: I will see you in court. And if you say that companies are too big for one individual to fight them in court, I have 2 things for that: 1. Government makes companies too big. 2. When resources such as air are polluted, then it's more than grievance from just one other land owner, there is a class action lawsuit there, and again, there is no need for any government to stop a polluter, especially if there are no government props protecting the polluter via limited liability, etc.
Go read a history book about what things were like before the 1960s.
- why bother? I lived in Ukraine at the time of Chernobyl, I know how well government manages its shit and how much it cares about the people.
- how is that physically possible, when the very definition of fiat currency is currency that only has any value due to its legal status, given to it and enforced by a government?
That makes no sense, gold does not need to be pronounced to be money, it is money, that's the way I treat it, thus it is money regardless of what any government thinks or says.
Considering how dangerous and unethical the process of mining for gold currently is, I couldn't imagine creating a system where companies are encouraged to ramp up production simply because we would rather trust in the value of shiny metal than the value of government-backed currency.
- you are worried about 'ramping up' gold production for inflation reasons, but you would rather stay with fiat, which we know can be printed until they run out of trees, and then they would just add more zeros to a computer stored bank account?
Well, nice to know the level of rationality on this site.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually calculated the global collective waste due to slow heavily abstracted languages running across the globe that cost is significantly than it would've been to write it properly to begin with.
- but there is another side to this coin. What if writing an application in a higher level language is not only simpler than in a lower level language, due to more variety of specialized libraries, but also produces fewer errors per some unit of code (per line or per transaction or per function, whatever)?
If this is true ( and I do think it is, that's after working in this industry since 1995), then except for having a possibly slower program, you also end up having a program, that is possibly more correct (and easier to maintain).
Now, while the program speed is important, because of how many times the application will be executed, as you say, then what about all the errors that also will be executed that many times?
What is better, having an application that is faster or having an application that is more correct and easier to maintain? Of-course it's better to have both, but that's why the underlying platform for languages like Java goes over the changes, that make it faster as time passes, and the code does not have to be rewritten, it can stay the same really.d
Currency only has any value as long as it is accepted by people for exchange for goods and services, it can be inflated (its supply can be increased) and it can be deflated (its supply can be decreased, usually by the issuer buying the currency back for whatever assets from people).
But there is one catch.
While currency is inflated, but people still do not feel that they are rapidly losing purchasing power in it (feeling is different from reality btw), the currency will still be in circulation, used for exchange.
But once the people decide en mass that the currency is actually worthless, at that point it is impossible to give the currency ANY value back by just the issuer buying it back. At that point it absolutely will not matter if most of that currency is removed from the market, nobody will want it regardless if even just 1 unit of it is left in the market. If its perceived as worthless, it stays worthless.
What I understand about you, is that you like being a populist, you like the crowd that it gathers, like any old narcissist, you like being center of attention and to be the 'speaker of the people'. It is clear though, that underneath that cover there is a control freak, that would not hesitate, if given the opportunity, to turn the opposition into dust, I bet you'd have your own Gitmo to throw anybody you do not personally approve of into. Your kind is in power in socialist states, that's certain.
Anyway, douchebag, have a good night.
true, didn't notice your pathetic handle there. You do need some fresh air though.
oh boy, more of you, ha? I think you should step away from the computer and go have some fresh air.
Let me be franc here, that's exactly how it is. But don't call me Shirly.
I think there is something off with the story, it sounds as if it's written by a female, and I know I know, that's doubly ridiculous, given the kind of the subject brought up in TFS. But to answer the question about the admins laughing there, I think an important missing bit of info.
So, anonymous poster, are you, or have you ever been accused of not being a male?
if somebody wanted to do something to that pawn, why would he/she be announcing this ahead of time on a site? However if they outlaw thoughts of that nature, then only the outlaws will have those thoughts.
good. Now solve the next important world's mysteries: who are the 2 chicks in the Internets tubes (except for 2g1c) and how is driving or flying a DeLorean at 88MPH help it to move through time back and forward.
Oh, and if you can go ahead and do this by tomorrow, I have an important meeting I will need to provide this information at.
What you missed is what I said: function of a market.
In Scotland there was a market for more education, thus all sorts of schools were started. Any 'public' offering was actually started by churches, and it definitely didn't require government intervention. Most other schools were started privately and there was enough competition between schools that prices were low enough for a large number of students to attend.
The USA is still the largest economy in the world. It got that way through its education system, which, for all its faults, produces enough smart people and innovators and potentially-trainable employees for the market.
- I disagree with the premise. On paper of government statisticians, USA has the 'largest economy' in the world. I disagree with their accounting practices. USA is far behind China and likely Japan and Germany AFAIC, because you have to count the inflation levels and the type of manufacturing that is done. USA has weapons manufacturing, but the rest is mostly assembly of parts brought from other countries. There is no need for highly educated workforce in USA, that's why there are so many lawyers: too many people start in humanities and then by the end, not knowing where to go, they switch to the next 'closest' thing - law.
God, you're either insane or an idiot.
- nice argument. But don't call me God.
This has anything with the question at hand, why exactly?
- end result is the only thing that counts.
Limited liability means nothing, life is not whatever insane libertarian utopia you think it is, companies will find every single way to get out of paying. Since they have more power than those suing them they are much better at doing it. Destroying evidence, intimidation, legal chaff, payed off experts and so on and so on.
- large corporations can do more than small businesses, but in the world of government regulated business and government printing money there are too many large corporations created by the governments in the first place.
Of course, you fail to realize that suing someone is dependent on a government. For both the underlying legal system, judicial system to arbitrate and enforcement of the judgment.
- nope. Justice systems rely on trust of public to the judges, and there is more and more evidence that government judges cannot be trusted because they have government agenda. Justice system does not need government at all - it needs competition, like everything else does.
If they can find out who did it ($$$), prove who did it ($$$) and then manage to sue them successfully ($$$). History has showed that companies are very good at getting out of such problems by use of superior money reserves. Landowners often sue corporations for damaging their land, they often lose. That is fact, your own insane view of reality is not.
- landowners lose to corporations because corporations have overwhelming power in the world of government meddling with economy and regulating businesses.
As to finding who did what - in a world without government helping out corporations, there would be an opportunity for a business (or a few), specializing in finding out these exact things and putting together a lawsuit.
You said companies are making recycling programs of their own volition. They are not. Laws are making them do that. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said by shifting the argument.
- first of all, I did not anywhere say that today companies make recycling programs on their own. Some might, some might not, I cannot speak for every corporation, so don't put words into my mouth.
Secondly, the only problem is the person who does the dumping of whatever illegally on other people's property, this is a private matter, government has nothing to do with it.
So you mean you have to pick up a gun and attack the entity doing the dumping? After all, without the government that is your only alternative.
- why, is government standing there on your property, protecting you from all bad things and waiting for the bad guys with guns? This is a nonsense argument.
Prove it, history has showed that the natural state for corporation is to grow into giant monopolies. Without a government, the corporation will become governments.
- nonsense. Without government power corporations have competition. What do I have to prove? AT&T? US banks? US insurance companies? US agriculture corporations? US food manufacturers? US energy producers? US education? US military? What do I have to prove, that is not immediately clear to you?
Corporations will then either unanimously succeed in proving they are doing no harm, good luck proving otherwise without going bankrupt. The alternative is that all corporations will all be sued into oblivion and thus destroy the economy. The government provides a system that keeps either extreme from happening.
- nonsense. Government has only one interest: grow monopolies that are too large ('to fail') and then collect as much money from them as possible, be it through taxes or be it through some other 'contributions'.
When you talk of corporations, you do mean the large entities, t
It may not be purely fiat.
- you don't understand the meaning of the word. The word means: "by decree" basically. It means "by law".
Gold does not need to be declared money, as I said, people who understand what money is see and use it as money - store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. Governments cannot change this fact.
No, actually, I am worried about the number of resources we would waste trying to extract every last gram of gold from the ground, and the number of people who would devote their lives to mining this gold*, and possibly get killed in the process.
- how is that any more of a problem than any other production? People get killed working in paper mills, do we stop using paper?
You seem to be assuming that the fed is out to get you.
- the fed is out to get you, me they can't get, I don't buy into their 'product'. You see, Fed is very vocal about 'supporting the economy' by the means of creating inflation. That's their goal - to keep up the valuations of failed businesses, of banks, of housing market, and of the US bond prices. To do so they print USD and they flood the market with it in ways that supports those valuations.
Of-course all of those things actually need to be crashed in prices, that is why in real terms (gold), these things are falling in prices in a hurry. The problem for you is that while in real terms those things fall in prices, in nominal terms they stay within their current price range, which means that for the real terms to fall in prices, the prices of other things must rise in nominal terms.
Thus you get the Fed being there out to get you with higher prices for everything that matters: food, energy, clothes, etc.
Why is it "rational" to have the value of currency determined by how much shiny can be dug up, to have equipment and people dedicated to something that produces no value (digging up gold we don't need), but irrational to simply have a policy determined by someone who is an expert on the economy?
- on the contrary. Gold we do need, people understand it, there is real value in gold. But never mind gold, we need things, and that can be anything - from food to energy to other minerals.
But when you argue that people should not be 'dedicated' to doing meaningless work, you are correct. Except that you don't see that the real problem with meaningless work is the work that produces something but does nothing for the person who is producing it. And when you get paid in money that is worth nothing (or very little, and less with each day), then your labor did go into nothing.
OTOH if you produce something and you get paid with what people have considered real money, regardless of what governments say - they actually can use that in real markets to exchange for real goods and they know that they will keep their purchasing power (or as in case with depressions, as one is happening right now, their purchasing power will grow in fact).
Also your faith in 'experts in economy' is quite misplaced. I see the government economists for what they are - charlatans and witch doctors. They are the modern day shamans, running the show for the kings.
Experts? The other day Bernanke said: nobody could see the collapse of 2008 coming. Well, :) I am a nobody then, and he can go to hell.
sure, they were improvements alright. They improved the chances of politicians to grow their government power, to have bigger offices with more staff in them, to stay in power forever and to build a government empire on the backs of actual producers, who are in China now. If you count that as an improvement that is.
any demand that is created by money that is printed is artificial, so when I say 'artificial', I mean the demand that is not coming out of legitimate savings and production, but demand that will disappear as government will no longer be able to print the currency (for whatever reason, most likely the crash of the currency and the bond market).
Without a logical argument to support this statement, it is merely a religious conviction.
- you need to be explicitly told everything? No time for thinking is allowed, yes?
It's called staying in power, which in case of government is bought with promises to do things for the mob, and those promises must be paid for, but since nobody likes taxes, the promises get 'paid' for with inflation via the printing press. This is the tax upon all of our fiat denominated savings, not just your new income, which is also going to be taxed (unconstitutionally as well, in case of USA).
Money printing is the logical outcome of politicians having that power, and they should not be given that power. Now do I have to explain why?
You have not shown any evidence to discredit the well developed ideas of the economists you dismiss
- I have shown it plenty of times on this forum alone. The 'well developed' ideas of the 'economists' you wish to stick with (be my guest, by the way, it's your money that's going down the drain every day you misdiagnose the problem,) cannot explain simplest things, starting from inflation, to the causes of the prices going up. They can't explain how their own policies lead to the asset bubbles being inflated and they cannot see one that's huge, that's being inflated right now - the US bond bubble. They think it's fine to buy their own debt with printed money, they think it's fine to subsidize banks and even other central banks with the money ('currency swaps', they call it,) so that there is still a simulation of some demand in the market for US debt, which is all they have left up their sleeves, now that their "well developed" ideas have pushed all investment capital out of their countries and to places that like owning production capacity as means to feed themselves.
So with all these economists, who are all for government intervention, anything from money printing to minimum wage laws, to labor unions working for the government, to the ponzi scheme of SS and Medicare taxes and payouts, which are not based on any investment, but are purely money transfer and debt, to their stance on providing loans to people for consumption and not production, to their ideas that government needs to be involved in 'creating jobs', even if that's literally digging and filling up ditches (I mean, I actually heard the idiot Krugman say that on a radio show)... All these 'economists' are witch doctors, and you can stick with them.
I am going to stick with my ideas, which kept my purchasing power over the years from these monsters.
forty of the most peaceful years the world has ever known
- hhhmmmmm. And people wonder why the world sees US as a freaking monster. 40 peaceful years? No Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, those don't matter though, I know, they are not American.
Should we just let them starve? Capitalism says yes, socialism says no
- free market capitalism wouldn't waste resources like that, that's just stupid.
These people would have jobs if government wasn't preventing them from having those jobs by driving capital investment out of the country, by destroying the value of the currency, by regulating businesses till all competition is destroyed and only the government preferred monopolies stay in power.
Since when is the government + monopolies government creates is capitalism? It's fascism.
Aside from distorting the market for gold, pining the value of federal reserve notes to a weight of gold limited the Federal Reserve Bank's ability to influence the money supply.
- which is good, no government institution should be influencing money supply, and if you say that the Fed is not a government institution, then you have to show me one time, when the Fed went against the desire of the government to monetize their debt.
As Scott Sumner has demonstrated, not addressing a shortage in the money supply contributed greatly to the Great Depression.
- as I said, all these economists, pushing the government agenda are charlatans, shamans and witch doctors. That position on the Great Depression alone puts this guy into the 'witch doctor' camp - no matter how much money government prints and hands out it's never enough.
Great depression was caused by US government propping up UK pound and then, once the asset bubble created out of the inflated money supply burst, the government started with all sorts of stimulus packages and bail outs, all of which did worse damage than even the original money printing that inflated the asset bubble, I provided a few details about it here.
The 1921 depression took under 2 years to resolve because government did nothing to try and save anybody from it and in fact Harding cut spending by near 70%, but Hoover decided he was going to 'fix' the problem, so what he ended up with was the Great Depression and then FDR didn't help either. Great Depression ended when government finally stopped with the spending after the WWII ended, and as US had a monopoly on production at the time, for reasons that everybody else was destroyed, US labor was able to command a formidable wage, which allowed a high-school drop out to support a family of four with a stay at home wife, own a couple of houses and a few cars, have all sorts of vacations, pay for medical and education expenses totally out of pocket and do all of that with a smile and without any debt.
The reality is that you are a robot, who has no sense of humor and you are a freaking troll.
yeah, if applied directly over certain passengers.
- you are worried about 'ramping up' gold production for inflation reasons, but you would rather stay with fiat, which we know can be printed until they run out of trees, and then they would just add more zeros to a computer stored bank account?
- doesn't sound so paleolithic when quoted fully now, does it, you freaking troll?
And Fukushima was. So was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Texas City Refinery explosion. Exxon Valdez oil spill. Three Mile Island accident. Bhopal disaster. Seveso disaster. Minamata disaster. Cuyahoga River fire. Your point?
- WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Your point?
Who actually kills more people in their chase for money, is it government or is it a private company?
Now, certainly, there are problem in everything, but governments by many orders of magnitude are killing and hurting more people than any private business ever could, and private businesses, for the absence of government intervention at least are working on bringing something useful to the economy, while governments are by design destructive to it.
You can quite seriously write pages and pages and pages on all the ways companies cut corners to save money. Then lied about it or covered it up. They generally only stopped once the government put it's fist down.
- that's perfectly fine, companies should try and save money. If they do so and cause accidents that hurt people, they should be sued and there shouldn't be government guaranteed liability limit to how much you can sue a business owner or a manager, so there is the real problem of negligent companies: governments provide them with the incentive to be negligent via "limited liability" status granted to the corporations by governments.
We don't do those things because the government mandates it and enforces those laws. Companies are forced to do those things. They hardly do them of their own volition.
- and all that is needed is for people to actually own their property, rather than thinking that government owns it, so any piece of property needs an owner, who will care about what is happening on his property and be able to defend it in court.
As to the mandates not to dump oil and car batteries - actually this is about the private citizens, customers of the companies, it's really a mandate on the customers whether they can or cannot just dump oil all over the place. If somebody tries to dump their shit on your property, it's really between them and you, and has nothing to do with government.
They hardly do them of their own volition. Left on their own companies will in fact dump oil into rivers and chuck car batteries into the nearest landfill.
- that's another problem of not having actual owners of the land, and when government "owns" it, that's basically the reason it even can act as somebody who sets the rules on his land. If government is the owner of the land, then of-course it has the ability to pass laws and protect that land, but the point is that government shouldn't own any assets, so anybody dumping anything into anywhere, that can leak into common resource, like a river, will have to deal with the consequences with others, who own part of the land that river goes through for example. Same with air pollution: you pollute the air and it doesn't actually stay within the boundaries of your property and crosses into mine: I will see you in court. And if you say that companies are too big for one individual to fight them in court, I have 2 things for that: 1. Government makes companies too big. 2. When resources such as air are polluted, then it's more than grievance from just one other land owner, there is a class action lawsuit there, and again, there is no need for any government to stop a polluter, especially if there are no government props protecting the polluter via limited liability, etc.
Go read a history book about what things were like before the 1960s.
- why bother? I lived in Ukraine at the time of Chernobyl, I know how well government manages its shit and how much it cares about the people.
Then gold would become a fiat currency.
- how is that physically possible, when the very definition of fiat currency is currency that only has any value due to its legal status, given to it and enforced by a government?
That makes no sense, gold does not need to be pronounced to be money, it is money, that's the way I treat it, thus it is money regardless of what any government thinks or says.
Considering how dangerous and unethical the process of mining for gold currently is, I couldn't imagine creating a system where companies are encouraged to ramp up production simply because we would rather trust in the value of shiny metal than the value of government-backed currency.
- you are worried about 'ramping up' gold production for inflation reasons, but you would rather stay with fiat, which we know can be printed until they run out of trees, and then they would just add more zeros to a computer stored bank account?
Well, nice to know the level of rationality on this site.
so now the apps are 'illegal', and they are not even drugs or weapons.