The 'language' seems to be limited to 4 letter words, each one has a consonant and a vowel, and then another consonant and another vowel in it. Does not look like a language at all, there is no grammar, there is nothing except basically 4 letter words used as hash keys to point at some areas on a map.
No, if anybody cared about the Constitution and the reason, why the separate States ratified it, they would have to agree that the correct solution is to abolish the income taxes, money printing, borrowing, reduce federal government to a size, that can be paid by excise and vice taxes, and let the separate States implement their own tax systems, that would at least provide the competition between states (preferably they would go with sales taxes, because it is best not to tax income, that is not spent, so that it can be saved and reinvested in the economy, which really needs capital investments, as long as they are real money, and not coming off the government printer.)
It's very easy, I wrote this program long time ago, it's effective and now I am going to provide it for the good of economy, and thus by extension for the good of society for free.
Here it is, it calculates and outputs the income or corporate or payroll or SS or Medicare taxes (for you, US taxpayers):
By the way, with your idea I just thought of a perfect way to screw anybody new, who enters the game for the benefit of those, who've been stuck in it for a while. All noobs are all losers, didn't you know? It's fair and balanced.
For your definition to be precise, you should then specify that you are talking about fiat.
Fiat is all about context.
Gold and other commodities have value with much wider range of context. When fiat disappears (and it always does), gold and other things stay and their value remains (measured in each other), but in the disappeared fiat, their value becomes infinite.
But real money does have 3 properties that I mentioned, if it doesn't possess those properties, then we are talking about flawed money.
Sure, why not. Didn't you realize that people were de-leveraging and plenty of money was actually removed from the system?
Then the QEs and bail outs and stimulus plans started ever stronger, and the fed's discount window was and still is offering money at 0% interest - that's free money.
However 2008 is a blip on the radar, the tendency for US dollar is down in terms of real money (not other flawed fiat, that stuff is all going down.)
well, that's quite a narrow definition of how a homo sapience becomes 'inhuman'. By this definition I've been inhuman since the age of 18, when I became a vegan.
Money is a store of value, unit of account and tokens of exchange. However many people confuse that with actual wealth, which is goods and services that are produced by the economy.
When economy stops producing, it loses wealth but it can still have plenty of money in it, it's just as the economy gets unproductive, it removes the backing from the money and then destroys the fiat currency by printing and destroys the economy completely by printing and borrowing.
yes, because it is very stable in terms of how quickly it loses its value.
It lost 3/4 of the value just since 2003, it lost 99% of value since 1913. Of-course in 19 century it gained value by factor of 2, but that was prior to government figuring out it can buy votes of the mob for cash.
The rich have that money (wealth) because it is produced by society. Period.
- you don't know what wealth is, and it's not money. Period.
If money were wealth, Zimbabwe, Argentina, USSR, Weimar Republic of Germany and the other 60-80 cases of high and/or hyper-inflation that happened within the last 150 years would have made those countries the richest in the world.
The reason why a country goes broke, when it prints and borrows more and more money is exactly due to the expansion of monetary supply, which coincides with government setting interest rates to 0% (or near 0%) for short term borrowing from the government banks - so money really becomes free (to large corporations at least) and this means that savings become wiped out. Anybody who saves in that currency loses everything, and this destroys the investment capital.
So people have figured this out and they quickly move their investment capital out of countries that take on this policy of destroying their currency. Of-course in USA this started with Nixon moving US off the gold standard. All this nonsense, that USA cannot default on its obligations is just political hot air, USA has already defaulted on many of its obligations, one of which was to redeem the US dollars for gold.
So, to reiterate: wealth of the society is not its money, it is its production base. If there is no production then there is no wealth. The reason why production moved out of USA and most of the rest of the Western nations is exactly because they are printing, borrowing and making all these unsustainable financial choices to maintain the welfare state.
As to rail roads, etc. In 19 century US government was involved in this and it helped the tycoons and the robber barons (as you call them), so again, my point that government must stay out of economic and fiscal decisions applies.
As to drugs: in USA FDA actually is the cause of most of the cost that drug development incurs. FDA prevents drugs from hitting the shelves and causes untold amount of pain and suffering, by forcing prices up due to all this nonsense that they force companies to go through. In USA many drugs cannot be sold that are sold around the world due to the rules that force companies to prove not only that drugs are safe for consumption, but also that they are effective, and this is definitely not the place for government, as it pushes the prices up, while keeping drugs out of people's reach.
When you say: "government does heavy lifting, always has" - you are absolutely wrong. The real heavy lifting comes from the private people, investing and risking, coming up with new ideas. Government can only stifle innovation, and any innovation that comes out of gov't funded research is either too expensive and mis-allocates resources, that could be spent better or it simply fails and it does so too late, because government does not get the market signals that it is mis-allocating resources on something, that market does not need.
As to people being trained by business and not by Universities - most people get nothing from Universities, they go there due to the pressure, created artificially by the government money, which subsidizes University degrees for too many people, inflating the value of those degrees away, while forcing the young to think they need those degrees to enter the work force.
Again, they would have been much better off simply working and learning through working. The government prevents all meaningful apprenticeship programs that used to take place prior to government money and intervention and regulations of labor.
When you say: 'precious rich folk move in, by congress critters, and pocket all the wealth' - again, that is why government must be expressly prohibited being involved in economy in any way shape or form. The businesses compete among each other for customers absent government, which provides incentives instead to compete not for customers in the market place, but for market share in government halls.
well, you are wrong on every point, and by the way - your way of thinking is what is driving investment capital out of Western nations and for a good reason.
I am not going to speak about large corporations, most of which have too many government connections to count as real market participants - they are mostly oligopolies/monopolies, that benefit from buying government officials, who then protect these monopolies by destroying competition. However small businesses always have hired apprentices when they could do so (when government didn't make the practice impossible due to all the labor regulations, that create too much risk of litigation and force labor prices too high for somebody, who is completely new to the work force).
You are wrong, because people used to be trained by small businesses in the West and they now get trained in Asia by those same small businesses (and also they do get trained by large firms there as well).
As to 90% tax, you are entitled to your opinion, but nobody ever paid that even when tax rates were that high in USA on personal taxes. People just find ways to go around that, as actual effective tax rate never exceeded 20% in USA (and it also rarely went below 18%).
You can dream all you want about the rich paying those ridiculous taxes, but that's just not going to happen ( and I am morally opposed to that as well, but that does not matter, I am opposed to even 1% income tax, it should be 0% for all businesses and people, Lucerne has this right, we'll eventually have 0%).
The rich actually provide much more benefit to society than any particular poor, because they do invest the money that they do not spend on themselves, and that money either in form of a business they run or in form of some credit that is made up of their investment ends up in a business, and as long as it does not end up in any government hands, I am happy, because only private enterprise actually creates wealth - products and services that market needs, as opposed to all the nonsense that governments waste the tax money on.
I am against government intervention into economy completely, as it has been shown time and again, that government should stay away from economy. As any organization that does not have to balance the books, it grows until it eats all resources that it can allocate, but because it is the government, it finds then that it can also destroy the very economy that it feeds from by destroying the currency of that economy and the society in process.
Should anybody pay 90% income taxes?:) no, of-course not. There is only one correct income tax: 0%.
But that was not even my original point, it was that government money create moral hazard in everything, and this includes higher education. I was giving an answer to your question, that's all.
As to you and your pals - you'll have to go through the private security and through the local police and funnily enough you'll then be met with our legally owned and mandated machine guns. Yes, machine guns and grenade launchers and even heavier stuff.
As to cancers - health care is as much a normal good as anything else, it has nothing to do with government.
Actually the best thing is for government to get out of the education and especially from providing government loans, from setting wage laws and various labor regulations, and you will not get this under any government that exists today.
The are many reasons for what I am claiming, I explained much of it here.
In reality most people do not benefit from university education and would be much better off finding employment as early as possible and training on the jobs, but they are prevented from that by government, that sets minimum wage, creates labor laws that make hiring people a liability, etc.
Instead the government provides all this artificial demand for college education - easy to get government loans, which end up creating the artificial demand at the universities, who then can easily jack up the prices and keep quality low, simply because of the government created moral hazard, and this at the same time inflates the value of a degree, decreases quality, keeps people away from learning something useful at work, causes very young people to owe extreme amounts of money before they even start their first jobs, and they have no collateral to cover that and they end up making irrational decisions in terms of what kind of education they'll be getting - something the free market would not allow them to do.
Free market actually is the solution, but only if it's free from government regulations, which would allow most people to get some work instead of going to universities. Of-course young people are indoctrinated by the government into being consumers of credit early on, while making sure they also become slaves into the system, since the education loans cannot even be discharged under bankruptcy laws.
Also today many of the students, who otherwise would be in the work market prefer to stay at school longer for yet another worthless but very expensive degree because the jobs are hard to find. So the real unemployment numbers are even hire because of this.
The amounts of money that the students end up owing are obscene, the programs that students enter are worthless, the educators are ridiculous, the jobs that could be done go unfilled, etc.
This is the government in action and yet people want more of it - must be the worthless economics 'education' provided by Western universities, but at least those classes do their job - keep government propaganda alive in people's minds.
As for the utterly irrational economic policies that have resulted in scores of directionless kids heading to college and picking the easier majors, distorting the market for technical degrees and leaving us with bottomless piles of college-educated baristas, well... I don't know where I'm going with any of this.
- I'll explain.
This is the result of all the government backed loans, that allow the colleges to raise tuition fees because they know, that the demand will not decrease simply due to the easy money that the government is providing, and so the colleges do not really see a reason either to decrease tuition fees or to improve the education quality. In fact with this glut of demand due to government money, there is a direct incentive to keep the quality of education low by lowering the requirements to the students, this means lower grades still give you a pass, this allows colleges to take more and more money in, there is no reason to cut anybody off the programs.
At the same time the students are given these huge amounts of money, but it's not their money, so they are not really thinking about the most optimal use of the resource, and so they end up making irrational choices.
At the same time the increased demand ('free' money), is causing so many people to graduate with the college degrees, that the actual worth of a degree is falling (inflating away), and this creates a perception that you must have a degree before entering the job market, so more people are sucked into this vicious circle.
--
What is actually needed, is as usual, for the government to stay away from the education process. Government education departments need to shut down, government provided loans need to disappear, so that all this moral hazard goes away. The glut of demand based on government money needs to disappear.
Most people do not need to go to a college or to a university. Most people actually benefit very little from it, and instead they just make irrational decisions, major in sociology and graduate with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, when in reality they would be much better off if they simply attempted to get some sort of an apprenticeship, tried to get themselves a job early on, to train on the job.
Of-course another thing that makes this very difficult is the insanity of the minimum wage - which prevents so many jobs from even appearing on the market (and this is while millions are out of work, this is truly insane.)
Minimum wage prevents apprenticeship positions from appearing, but it is not illegal to volunteer, so it is ironic how many people end up volunteering (working for free), while they could be collecting a small salary and work to get experience instead of going to an expensive university and getting a useless degree (useless for most of people) and paying for this dubious privilege through the nose and wasting years of their lives in process.
Of-course there are other reasons why there are so few real apprenticeship programs - various government regulations make it extremely costly to hire help for a variety of reasons (again, during a depression!), this is mostly about legal liability that is created by such nonsense laws as Civil Rights Act, Title II and all other types of government 'protection', which create the unintended consequence of destroying potential employment for various individuals, because they become a litigation risk, and the small shops, that actually could benefit the most from hiring apprentices stay away as far as possible, exactly due to this and other types of government protection and intervention.
Anyway, I hope I provided some clarity on the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please, like I am supposed to pay attention to every capitalization that takes place on this site.
By the way, if you look at that page and realize what I mean by "I understand the catch", then the 'woosh' would be over your head.
I wanted to reply with something sensible, then I read your sig....
Durba klane psilo farras nulbo htoiler pfo nqu staka ksta. FO!
I don't see it. Here is some info Also from this page I now understand the catch.
pize, rije, jaya, reya, kuzo, ropi, duka, vupe, puru, puga, huzu, hiza, bula, kobu, yifi, gige, soqe, liye, xala, mira, kopo, heto, zuce, xapo, fili, zuya, fexo, jara.
The 'language' seems to be limited to 4 letter words, each one has a consonant and a vowel, and then another consonant and another vowel in it. Does not look like a language at all, there is no grammar, there is nothing except basically 4 letter words used as hash keys to point at some areas on a map.
the very idea of that picture is disturbing. Would she then step on the dicks as she tried to walk anywhere? What about the balls? Ouch!
better link. Also, I didn't realize it at first, this is the person mostly responsible for it. She is from Australia and she decided to do this. I wonder what the catch with her is...
it's not mild at all. They are not reporting real inflation, they manufactured the numbers for it to seem mild. Real inflation is over 10%.
No, if anybody cared about the Constitution and the reason, why the separate States ratified it, they would have to agree that the correct solution is to abolish the income taxes, money printing, borrowing, reduce federal government to a size, that can be paid by excise and vice taxes, and let the separate States implement their own tax systems, that would at least provide the competition between states (preferably they would go with sales taxes, because it is best not to tax income, that is not spent, so that it can be saved and reinvested in the economy, which really needs capital investments, as long as they are real money, and not coming off the government printer.)
It's very easy, I wrote this program long time ago, it's effective and now I am going to provide it for the good of economy, and thus by extension for the good of society for free.
Here it is, it calculates and outputs the income or corporate or payroll or SS or Medicare taxes (for you, US taxpayers):
echo 0
By the way, with your idea I just thought of a perfect way to screw anybody new, who enters the game for the benefit of those, who've been stuck in it for a while. All noobs are all losers, didn't you know? It's fair and balanced.
Somehow, one price for all, seems more fair.
- how is that one price for all, if the 'loser' ends up shelling out $30? That's 'one price for all except THAT loser!'
For your definition to be precise, you should then specify that you are talking about fiat.
Fiat is all about context.
Gold and other commodities have value with much wider range of context. When fiat disappears (and it always does), gold and other things stay and their value remains (measured in each other), but in the disappeared fiat, their value becomes infinite.
But real money does have 3 properties that I mentioned, if it doesn't possess those properties, then we are talking about flawed money.
Sure, why not. Didn't you realize that people were de-leveraging and plenty of money was actually removed from the system?
Then the QEs and bail outs and stimulus plans started ever stronger, and the fed's discount window was and still is offering money at 0% interest - that's free money.
However 2008 is a blip on the radar, the tendency for US dollar is down in terms of real money (not other flawed fiat, that stuff is all going down.)
it maybe a mayhem, but it's OUR damn mayhem!
well, that's quite a narrow definition of how a homo sapience becomes 'inhuman'. By this definition I've been inhuman since the age of 18, when I became a vegan.
New type of virus vector of-course.
Money is a store of value, unit of account and tokens of exchange. However many people confuse that with actual wealth, which is goods and services that are produced by the economy.
When economy stops producing, it loses wealth but it can still have plenty of money in it, it's just as the economy gets unproductive, it removes the backing from the money and then destroys the fiat currency by printing and destroys the economy completely by printing and borrowing.
2003:
cotton was USD50/pound
gold was 350/ounce
1/7 ratio
2011
cotton around USD220/pound
gold around USD1500/ounce
1/7 ratio
yes, because it is very stable in terms of how quickly it loses its value.
It lost 3/4 of the value just since 2003, it lost 99% of value since 1913. Of-course in 19 century it gained value by factor of 2, but that was prior to government figuring out it can buy votes of the mob for cash.
The rich have that money (wealth) because it is produced by society. Period.
- you don't know what wealth is, and it's not money. Period.
If money were wealth, Zimbabwe, Argentina, USSR, Weimar Republic of Germany and the other 60-80 cases of high and/or hyper-inflation that happened within the last 150 years would have made those countries the richest in the world.
The reason why a country goes broke, when it prints and borrows more and more money is exactly due to the expansion of monetary supply, which coincides with government setting interest rates to 0% (or near 0%) for short term borrowing from the government banks - so money really becomes free (to large corporations at least) and this means that savings become wiped out. Anybody who saves in that currency loses everything, and this destroys the investment capital.
So people have figured this out and they quickly move their investment capital out of countries that take on this policy of destroying their currency. Of-course in USA this started with Nixon moving US off the gold standard. All this nonsense, that USA cannot default on its obligations is just political hot air, USA has already defaulted on many of its obligations, one of which was to redeem the US dollars for gold.
So, to reiterate: wealth of the society is not its money, it is its production base. If there is no production then there is no wealth. The reason why production moved out of USA and most of the rest of the Western nations is exactly because they are printing, borrowing and making all these unsustainable financial choices to maintain the welfare state.
As to rail roads, etc. In 19 century US government was involved in this and it helped the tycoons and the robber barons (as you call them), so again, my point that government must stay out of economic and fiscal decisions applies.
As to drugs: in USA FDA actually is the cause of most of the cost that drug development incurs. FDA prevents drugs from hitting the shelves and causes untold amount of pain and suffering, by forcing prices up due to all this nonsense that they force companies to go through. In USA many drugs cannot be sold that are sold around the world due to the rules that force companies to prove not only that drugs are safe for consumption, but also that they are effective, and this is definitely not the place for government, as it pushes the prices up, while keeping drugs out of people's reach.
When you say: "government does heavy lifting, always has" - you are absolutely wrong. The real heavy lifting comes from the private people, investing and risking, coming up with new ideas. Government can only stifle innovation, and any innovation that comes out of gov't funded research is either too expensive and mis-allocates resources, that could be spent better or it simply fails and it does so too late, because government does not get the market signals that it is mis-allocating resources on something, that market does not need.
As to people being trained by business and not by Universities - most people get nothing from Universities, they go there due to the pressure, created artificially by the government money, which subsidizes University degrees for too many people, inflating the value of those degrees away, while forcing the young to think they need those degrees to enter the work force.
Again, they would have been much better off simply working and learning through working. The government prevents all meaningful apprenticeship programs that used to take place prior to government money and intervention and regulations of labor.
When you say: 'precious rich folk move in, by congress critters, and pocket all the wealth' - again, that is why government must be expressly prohibited being involved in economy in any way shape or form. The businesses compete among each other for customers absent government, which provides incentives instead to compete not for customers in the market place, but for market share in government halls.
well, you are wrong on every point, and by the way - your way of thinking is what is driving investment capital out of Western nations and for a good reason.
I am not going to speak about large corporations, most of which have too many government connections to count as real market participants - they are mostly oligopolies/monopolies, that benefit from buying government officials, who then protect these monopolies by destroying competition. However small businesses always have hired apprentices when they could do so (when government didn't make the practice impossible due to all the labor regulations, that create too much risk of litigation and force labor prices too high for somebody, who is completely new to the work force).
You are wrong, because people used to be trained by small businesses in the West and they now get trained in Asia by those same small businesses (and also they do get trained by large firms there as well).
As to 90% tax, you are entitled to your opinion, but nobody ever paid that even when tax rates were that high in USA on personal taxes. People just find ways to go around that, as actual effective tax rate never exceeded 20% in USA (and it also rarely went below 18%).
You can dream all you want about the rich paying those ridiculous taxes, but that's just not going to happen ( and I am morally opposed to that as well, but that does not matter, I am opposed to even 1% income tax, it should be 0% for all businesses and people, Lucerne has this right, we'll eventually have 0%).
The rich actually provide much more benefit to society than any particular poor, because they do invest the money that they do not spend on themselves, and that money either in form of a business they run or in form of some credit that is made up of their investment ends up in a business, and as long as it does not end up in any government hands, I am happy, because only private enterprise actually creates wealth - products and services that market needs, as opposed to all the nonsense that governments waste the tax money on.
I am against government intervention into economy completely, as it has been shown time and again, that government should stay away from economy. As any organization that does not have to balance the books, it grows until it eats all resources that it can allocate, but because it is the government, it finds then that it can also destroy the very economy that it feeds from by destroying the currency of that economy and the society in process.
Should anybody pay 90% income taxes? :) no, of-course not. There is only one correct income tax: 0%.
But that was not even my original point, it was that government money create moral hazard in everything, and this includes higher education. I was giving an answer to your question, that's all.
As to you and your pals - you'll have to go through the private security and through the local police and funnily enough you'll then be met with our legally owned and mandated machine guns. Yes, machine guns and grenade launchers and even heavier stuff.
As to cancers - health care is as much a normal good as anything else, it has nothing to do with government.
Actually the best thing is for government to get out of the education and especially from providing government loans, from setting wage laws and various labor regulations, and you will not get this under any government that exists today.
The are many reasons for what I am claiming, I explained much of it here.
In reality most people do not benefit from university education and would be much better off finding employment as early as possible and training on the jobs, but they are prevented from that by government, that sets minimum wage, creates labor laws that make hiring people a liability, etc.
Instead the government provides all this artificial demand for college education - easy to get government loans, which end up creating the artificial demand at the universities, who then can easily jack up the prices and keep quality low, simply because of the government created moral hazard, and this at the same time inflates the value of a degree, decreases quality, keeps people away from learning something useful at work, causes very young people to owe extreme amounts of money before they even start their first jobs, and they have no collateral to cover that and they end up making irrational decisions in terms of what kind of education they'll be getting - something the free market would not allow them to do.
Free market actually is the solution, but only if it's free from government regulations, which would allow most people to get some work instead of going to universities. Of-course young people are indoctrinated by the government into being consumers of credit early on, while making sure they also become slaves into the system, since the education loans cannot even be discharged under bankruptcy laws.
Also today many of the students, who otherwise would be in the work market prefer to stay at school longer for yet another worthless but very expensive degree because the jobs are hard to find. So the real unemployment numbers are even hire because of this.
The amounts of money that the students end up owing are obscene, the programs that students enter are worthless, the educators are ridiculous, the jobs that could be done go unfilled, etc.
This is the government in action and yet people want more of it - must be the worthless economics 'education' provided by Western universities, but at least those classes do their job - keep government propaganda alive in people's minds.
As for the utterly irrational economic policies that have resulted in scores of directionless kids heading to college and picking the easier majors, distorting the market for technical degrees and leaving us with bottomless piles of college-educated baristas, well... I don't know where I'm going with any of this.
- I'll explain.
This is the result of all the government backed loans, that allow the colleges to raise tuition fees because they know, that the demand will not decrease simply due to the easy money that the government is providing, and so the colleges do not really see a reason either to decrease tuition fees or to improve the education quality. In fact with this glut of demand due to government money, there is a direct incentive to keep the quality of education low by lowering the requirements to the students, this means lower grades still give you a pass, this allows colleges to take more and more money in, there is no reason to cut anybody off the programs.
At the same time the students are given these huge amounts of money, but it's not their money, so they are not really thinking about the most optimal use of the resource, and so they end up making irrational choices.
At the same time the increased demand ('free' money), is causing so many people to graduate with the college degrees, that the actual worth of a degree is falling (inflating away), and this creates a perception that you must have a degree before entering the job market, so more people are sucked into this vicious circle.
--
What is actually needed, is as usual, for the government to stay away from the education process. Government education departments need to shut down, government provided loans need to disappear, so that all this moral hazard goes away. The glut of demand based on government money needs to disappear.
Most people do not need to go to a college or to a university. Most people actually benefit very little from it, and instead they just make irrational decisions, major in sociology and graduate with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, when in reality they would be much better off if they simply attempted to get some sort of an apprenticeship, tried to get themselves a job early on, to train on the job.
Of-course another thing that makes this very difficult is the insanity of the minimum wage - which prevents so many jobs from even appearing on the market (and this is while millions are out of work, this is truly insane.)
Minimum wage prevents apprenticeship positions from appearing, but it is not illegal to volunteer, so it is ironic how many people end up volunteering (working for free), while they could be collecting a small salary and work to get experience instead of going to an expensive university and getting a useless degree (useless for most of people) and paying for this dubious privilege through the nose and wasting years of their lives in process.
Of-course there are other reasons why there are so few real apprenticeship programs - various government regulations make it extremely costly to hire help for a variety of reasons (again, during a depression!), this is mostly about legal liability that is created by such nonsense laws as Civil Rights Act, Title II and all other types of government 'protection', which create the unintended consequence of destroying potential employment for various individuals, because they become a litigation risk, and the small shops, that actually could benefit the most from hiring apprentices stay away as far as possible, exactly due to this and other types of government protection and intervention.
Anyway, I hope I provided some clarity on the issue.
Cheers.
If that is true - if there is no way to have market for private nuclear power, then you are correct, we should not have it.
I don't believe this is true, not in the long run anyway, as the technology improves, the costs go down.