We should also ban drinking alcohol at home. After all there's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.
And we should ban trading stocks from home. Heck, they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.
And don't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.
In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated (by the US) online casinos run out of tax haven countries (read very easy book keeping rules). With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction. Or is creating a China style "Great Firewall of the United States" part of your preference?
I buy a car with the money. The car dealer puts the money in the bank. Sure not all of it he pays some wages - by putting it in the bank account of the worker. He sends a check off to a supplier - who deposits the check in his bank account.
No one is saying that the person who borrows the money puts it in the bank. They are saying that that money makes its way through the system over thousands of transactions and at some steps a little of it is left in the bank (and all of it transitions through the bank in most cases). After enough transactions it is all in the bank (other than the what is horded as cash, as in physical currency).
At every point in time the money is either in cash or in a bank.
It doesn't matter that I spent most of what I earned last year. Since the money just ends up in the bank under a different name (the grocery store, the farmer who supplied the grocery store, the chemical company who supplied the farmer, etc, etc).
Microsoft buying securities is irrelevant, that just means the money was transferred to whomever sold the securities to them. And they either put it in the bank, or held it in cash, or bought some other asset with it - in which case we just follow the chain another link since they bought the asset from someone who now has the money in a bank or in cash.
There simply isn't enough cash for it not to end up mostly back in the hands of a bank. And the banks get their hands on the money that is "in transaction" too most of the time.
The "paper profits" of asset holdings aren't in a bank account, that is true - but that isn't what is being discussed - the money creation of a $100 cash deposit is.
The only way they loan out $900 is if you are counting all the iterations: ie. $100 gets deposited, so they loan out $90, that $90 ends up back in the bank as a deposit at some point, so they loan another $81 out, and so on and so on.
But you ignored that they have to pay out that deposit interest on all those deposit iterations not just the initial $100.
And you also can't count it as profit against that $100 deposited, since $1000 ends up being deposited. It makes no difference that the money was created by the banking systems money multiplier and not by plain old printing. The bank still has $1000 of liabilities on the sheet.
The currency would inflate to hyper-inflation levels, or there'd be a default or an arrangement with the creditors.
It would seriously suck. But yes it's not the end of the country or anything. Germany as you said has gone through it. More recently (and a closer parallel) would be Russia.
Being armed to the teeth with nukes means the rest of world more likely to assist in rebuilding the US economy too. I would hope anyway.
But it ends the US economic hegemony of the dollar as the reserve currency, and the US doesn't return to being the center of the world economy - at least not until there's another large shift.
The Australian constitution does not place anywhere near the limits on the government as the US one does.
The unintended consequences are irrelevant to the simple fact that the people who make the law are not showing a lack of understanding by discussing cracking down on something that a court has ruled is legal under the current laws - since they can change the laws.
When you open it COs is released this causes the pressure to fall.
pV = nRT
So you did in fact cool it by opening it.
You could also supercool it I guess and shaking it a little when taking it out causes it to crystallize - but I'm having doubts about beer and beer bottles being pure enough to not crystallize out in the first place.
I was joking about the dumping in the ocean... How about having another set of workers recycle the products back into raw materials for a complete loop.
The losses along the way can be made up by exporting some products to non-US countries to buy more resources with.
The point is that a large amount of the dollars they get from the US they don't use to buy resources with, they use them to buy US treasuries to keep the US afloat to keep consuming their products. Though they have been making a mad "better spend them dollars while they are good" rush to buy up everything they can.
Yes there's a co-dependency, but if you break that dependency then the US collapses in a heap, while China has a recession followed by better economic performance than they have now (since inflation will be lower when they don't have to pseudo-peg their currency artificially low).
Why does a totalitarian regime have to keep the workers happy? Squishing them with tanks when they complain seems simpler.
And what is difference to the worker if instead of selling the stuff built with their labor to the US, the Chinese government just buys it directly from them with freshly printed yuan and dumps it in the ocean? What changes, other than China not collecting IOUs that it exchanges for more IOUs.
I think you'll find the guy who changes nationalities to get around media ownership laws in order to make more money knows more about the workings of capitalism than you.
For example, he knows that killing off things which harm his existing money making enterprises is a reasonable path to take. So is adapting which he also knows as evidenced by his newspaper->television->internet expansions.
Screw that dumb scientific method thing, in which showing correlation is the first step you take when you think "I suspect that A causes B let us see if that is true".
Much better to just go and try and prove that is how it works without checking if it's even plausible in the first place.
Except that Xcalc is shorter than calculator. So it's both more accurate and less verbose. Both your examples are simply adding extra words which serve no purpose other than advertising themselves. There's no addition in the xcalc example, it's a simple way of saying "I didn't add this up in my head".
I would say "fired up calc" over "fired up a calculator", and showing that I use the window calc program isn't the goal of the statement. It's just how I see the action. If I used excel instead I'd say "fired up excel" not "fired up a spreadsheet" too. Not to add detail but because that's how I think of it.
Of course I'm not the original author who very well may have been trying to show off that he uses a shitty OS.
Slashdot Mirror
We should also ban drinking alcohol at home. After all there's no bartender to stop serving you when you have had enough.
And we should ban trading stocks from home. Heck, they let you buy on margin something no gambling site I know about does.
And don't get me started on those currency trading sites - have you seen the margins they essentially require.
In the case of gambling it is much better that our problem gamblers end up at unregulated (by the US) online casinos run out of tax haven countries (read very easy book keeping rules). With all the revenue staying out of the country and none of it being declared to the IRS or under their jurisdiction. Or is creating a China style "Great Firewall of the United States" part of your preference?
I buy a car with the money. The car dealer puts the money in the bank. Sure not all of it he pays some wages - by putting it in the bank account of the worker. He sends a check off to a supplier - who deposits the check in his bank account.
No one is saying that the person who borrows the money puts it in the bank. They are saying that that money makes its way through the system over thousands of transactions and at some steps a little of it is left in the bank (and all of it transitions through the bank in most cases). After enough transactions it is all in the bank (other than the what is horded as cash, as in physical currency).
At every point in time the money is either in cash or in a bank.
It doesn't matter that I spent most of what I earned last year. Since the money just ends up in the bank under a different name (the grocery store, the farmer who supplied the grocery store, the chemical company who supplied the farmer, etc, etc).
Microsoft buying securities is irrelevant, that just means the money was transferred to whomever sold the securities to them. And they either put it in the bank, or held it in cash, or bought some other asset with it - in which case we just follow the chain another link since they bought the asset from someone who now has the money in a bank or in cash.
There simply isn't enough cash for it not to end up mostly back in the hands of a bank. And the banks get their hands on the money that is "in transaction" too most of the time.
The "paper profits" of asset holdings aren't in a bank account, that is true - but that isn't what is being discussed - the money creation of a $100 cash deposit is.
Your profit calculation is just plain ridiculous.
The only way they loan out $900 is if you are counting all the iterations: ie. $100 gets deposited, so they loan out $90, that $90 ends up back in the bank as a deposit at some point, so they loan another $81 out, and so on and so on.
But you ignored that they have to pay out that deposit interest on all those deposit iterations not just the initial $100.
And you also can't count it as profit against that $100 deposited, since $1000 ends up being deposited. It makes no difference that the money was created by the banking systems money multiplier and not by plain old printing. The bank still has $1000 of liabilities on the sheet.
The currency would inflate to hyper-inflation levels, or there'd be a default or an arrangement with the creditors.
It would seriously suck. But yes it's not the end of the country or anything. Germany as you said has gone through it. More recently (and a closer parallel) would be Russia.
Being armed to the teeth with nukes means the rest of world more likely to assist in rebuilding the US economy too. I would hope anyway.
But it ends the US economic hegemony of the dollar as the reserve currency, and the US doesn't return to being the center of the world economy - at least not until there's another large shift.
The Australian constitution does not place anywhere near the limits on the government as the US one does.
The unintended consequences are irrelevant to the simple fact that the people who make the law are not showing a lack of understanding by discussing cracking down on something that a court has ruled is legal under the current laws - since they can change the laws.
Because there was not a single crime committed before the internet existed.
How did Australia get its initial European inhabitants again?
Which part of "Politicians can change the laws when they don't like court interpretations of existing laws" do you not understand?
because no one has ever released a game for multiple platforms.
When you open it COs is released this causes the pressure to fall.
pV = nRT
So you did in fact cool it by opening it.
You could also supercool it I guess and shaking it a little when taking it out causes it to crystallize - but I'm having doubts about beer and beer bottles being pure enough to not crystallize out in the first place.
I was joking about the dumping in the ocean... How about having another set of workers recycle the products back into raw materials for a complete loop.
The losses along the way can be made up by exporting some products to non-US countries to buy more resources with.
The point is that a large amount of the dollars they get from the US they don't use to buy resources with, they use them to buy US treasuries to keep the US afloat to keep consuming their products. Though they have been making a mad "better spend them dollars while they are good" rush to buy up everything they can.
Yes there's a co-dependency, but if you break that dependency then the US collapses in a heap, while China has a recession followed by better economic performance than they have now (since inflation will be lower when they don't have to pseudo-peg their currency artificially low).
Why does a totalitarian regime have to keep the workers happy? Squishing them with tanks when they complain seems simpler.
And what is difference to the worker if instead of selling the stuff built with their labor to the US, the Chinese government just buys it directly from them with freshly printed yuan and dumps it in the ocean? What changes, other than China not collecting IOUs that it exchanges for more IOUs.
I think you'll find the guy who changes nationalities to get around media ownership laws in order to make more money knows more about the workings of capitalism than you.
For example, he knows that killing off things which harm his existing money making enterprises is a reasonable path to take. So is adapting which he also knows as evidenced by his newspaper->television->internet expansions.
One by Metallica.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgGTTtR0kc until Lars sees it and sues everything that moves anyway.
Because no one has ever laundered money in all of history.
you really think if you had to use a mouse on an airport check-in machine that that mouse would "just work"?
That's a strange name to give a child...
Yes, a failure.
Screw that dumb scientific method thing, in which showing correlation is the first step you take when you think "I suspect that A causes B let us see if that is true".
Much better to just go and try and prove that is how it works without checking if it's even plausible in the first place.
Maybe you are too stupid to read?
depends whether you are a chemist or an astrophysicist.
A virtual virtual? :)
Except that Xcalc is shorter than calculator. So it's both more accurate and less verbose. Both your examples are simply adding extra words which serve no purpose other than advertising themselves. There's no addition in the xcalc example, it's a simple way of saying "I didn't add this up in my head".
I would say "fired up calc" over "fired up a calculator", and showing that I use the window calc program isn't the goal of the statement. It's just how I see the action. If I used excel instead I'd say "fired up excel" not "fired up a spreadsheet" too. Not to add detail but because that's how I think of it.
Of course I'm not the original author who very well may have been trying to show off that he uses a shitty OS.
I don't disagree. In fact I like physical keyboards over large touch screens. I just don't see the "have to use" part as making sense.
And you messed up the analogy. Mine was X and !X, yours is X and X and hence makes absolutely no sense.
What color were McAuliffe's eyes?
Blue. One blew this way, the other blew that way.
Where do astronauts spend their vacation?
All over Florida.
So why do you care enough comment on a form factor that doesn't have a physical keyboard?
There are plenty of devices with keyboards and they aren't going away.