Taxing people and spending that money, and just plain printing it and causing inflation is effectively the same thing. Taxation lets you target who pays, inflation means you target people with savings automatically.
Currently what basically every government in the world has is both. They can tax and they can print money. And borrowing money from foreign sources to spend is the same as printing it, inflation wise - though when it is paid back it's the same as destroying money and hence deflationary.
The US is doing all three, it borrows from abroad. It prints money as fast it can without being called on it (see http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW - when the Fed loans money to banks that's exactly the same as printing money until those loans are paid back). And it taxes the people.
Printing money to cover the government budget is not a stupid idea. It just has one "minor" problem, there has to be some way of stopping the government doing a Zimbabwe. If the US government printed the money it collects in taxes there wouldn't be a problem - people would have higher incomes due to not paying those taxes, and the inflation from the printing would eat up that extra income for a zero sum result (unless you were living on a fixed income/savings, in which case it'd suck, but overall for the entire economy it's the same).
It would, in fact, be a much more efficient system - the cost of tax collection would be removed, barriers to entry in business would be reduced, etc, etc. Printing money these days costs nothing - you don't actually have to print the paper just push some numbers around in a computer.
Of course it will never work, because politicians are retarded and would think "we can just print ten times as much and make the voters rich, so they'll vote for us - the inflation won't bite until after we are out when it will be someone elses problem".
So you would need an educated, intelligent people to stop the government from doing such stupid things. Which obviously is never going happen.
If you think taxes cap government spending, please look at the US, it clearly does no such thing - at least in the short/medium term.
I've placed about 30 orders with amazon this year (so obviously I use Prime...) due to some uniqueish circumstances. Ranging from $1.30 to about $200 per order.
I have *never* had to sign for a package. I've had the UPS guy knock on the door and hand it to me, leave it outside the door after knocking, and leave it on the driveway.
Of course I'm in a small town of 1000 people - so leaving stuff out is pretty normal...
When I lived in the big city though, UPS/fedex/DHL always left packages with the valet, signature required or not, in the apartment building (much to my annoyance since I was often home...).
Clearly the stainless steel fork on the table next to me is a figment of my imagination, since the iron ore it was made from certainly had more entropy...
So, either "usually" means something different to you than me, or "big elections" means something different.
Presidential elections I would classify as big, for example. Yet in the last 100 years worth, they're 13 and 12 which would seem to be as close to even as you can get.
So the Republicans didn't want to win those elections? Why would you want to want to win this election over say 1996 - much higher chance of the economy cratering on your watch this time round...
Because office door locks are infallible. No one has ever picked one of them, or got their hands on the key for a 5 seconds to make an imprint and cut their own copy.
I test the setup before the DNS has pushed out using the IP address. Hence I get that message all the time (due to the cert not matching the domain). It's four clicks to getting to the page (and each step gives useful information the first time round) - sure one click would be nicer but it's not something you want to do with a single mistaken click.
Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a country in which laws didn't matter and murderers didn't go to jail.
However, the police are trying to put someone in jail whenever they do anything. That someone might be me. Hence best do just the bare minimum, since I'm not smart enough to not make a mistake of the sort described in the video linked previously.
And yes, 99% of the time they aren't looking to put me in jail. But again, risk/reward - there's basically no benefit to doing anything extra but a huge penalty that 1% of the time...
I like that the police do their job and put people in jail, but if they are wanting to talk to me they are no longer on my side. Since there's a chance they want to deprive me of my freedoms (deserved or otherwise).
It's the same as the nice police officer knocking on the door. That happens on the doorstep with the door closed behind me - they are not setting foot inside the house.
And I honestly believe there is nothing "in plain sight" that they might see - I don't do drugs (well there's one bottle of scotch) and so on. But who knows what someone visiting left behind, or if they made red socks illegal last week.
The police must always be assumed to be the enemy looking for something to use to take away your freedoms. Yes, usually they aren't - but it's not worth the risk, the consequences are too high and there's no upside anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxing people and spending that money, and just plain printing it and causing inflation is effectively the same thing. Taxation lets you target who pays, inflation means you target people with savings automatically.
Currently what basically every government in the world has is both. They can tax and they can print money. And borrowing money from foreign sources to spend is the same as printing it, inflation wise - though when it is paid back it's the same as destroying money and hence deflationary.
The US is doing all three, it borrows from abroad. It prints money as fast it can without being called on it (see http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW - when the Fed loans money to banks that's exactly the same as printing money until those loans are paid back). And it taxes the people.
Printing money to cover the government budget is not a stupid idea. It just has one "minor" problem, there has to be some way of stopping the government doing a Zimbabwe. If the US government printed the money it collects in taxes there wouldn't be a problem - people would have higher incomes due to not paying those taxes, and the inflation from the printing would eat up that extra income for a zero sum result (unless you were living on a fixed income/savings, in which case it'd suck, but overall for the entire economy it's the same).
It would, in fact, be a much more efficient system - the cost of tax collection would be removed, barriers to entry in business would be reduced, etc, etc. Printing money these days costs nothing - you don't actually have to print the paper just push some numbers around in a computer.
Of course it will never work, because politicians are retarded and would think "we can just print ten times as much and make the voters rich, so they'll vote for us - the inflation won't bite until after we are out when it will be someone elses problem".
So you would need an educated, intelligent people to stop the government from doing such stupid things. Which obviously is never going happen.
If you think taxes cap government spending, please look at the US, it clearly does no such thing - at least in the short/medium term.
A misleading summary on slashdot.
Shocking! :)
It was on UK television...
The text link has a transcript of the claim.
Random US ads collected on youtube aren't the same as one particular ad screened in the UK.
Shocking!
I've placed about 30 orders with amazon this year (so obviously I use Prime...) due to some uniqueish circumstances. Ranging from $1.30 to about $200 per order.
I have *never* had to sign for a package. I've had the UPS guy knock on the door and hand it to me, leave it outside the door after knocking, and leave it on the driveway.
Of course I'm in a small town of 1000 people - so leaving stuff out is pretty normal...
When I lived in the big city though, UPS/fedex/DHL always left packages with the valet, signature required or not, in the apartment building (much to my annoyance since I was often home...).
Anousheh Ansari.
If by "ironic" you mean "just like huge numbers of people predicted it would" then yes.
"was the stupidest thing I have ever seen" -> "was the stupidest thing I had ever seen"
Why would not use everything you have?
And I assume you NEVER mastered reading simple English statements.
After all that is exactly what I said.
And since the item in question is a backup service, which do you think it might be?
Not if you are in QA/testing...
There's this new fangled idea. Called encryption.
Wow, dumb much?
Clearly the stainless steel fork on the table next to me is a figment of my imagination, since the iron ore it was made from certainly had more entropy...
Except that their "proof" would be:
See we failed to get into space/the moon so it must be impossible and the powers that be have obviously been deceiving everyone about it.
Here's a hint, 10 people can count 10 times the number of ballots as 1 person. Adding the counts they come up with takes almost no extra time at all.
So, either "usually" means something different to you than me, or "big elections" means something different.
Presidential elections I would classify as big, for example. Yet in the last 100 years worth, they're 13 and 12 which would seem to be as close to even as you can get.
So the Republicans didn't want to win those elections? Why would you want to want to win this election over say 1996 - much higher chance of the economy cratering on your watch this time round...
Boy are they in for a surprise when they see European labor regulations...
Because office door locks are infallible. No one has ever picked one of them, or got their hands on the key for a 5 seconds to make an imprint and cut their own copy.
I set up SSL sites as my day job...
I test the setup before the DNS has pushed out using the IP address. Hence I get that message all the time (due to the cert not matching the domain). It's four clicks to getting to the page (and each step gives useful information the first time round) - sure one click would be nicer but it's not something you want to do with a single mistaken click.
Not the country, but law enforcement.
Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a country in which laws didn't matter and murderers didn't go to jail.
However, the police are trying to put someone in jail whenever they do anything. That someone might be me. Hence best do just the bare minimum, since I'm not smart enough to not make a mistake of the sort described in the video linked previously.
And yes, 99% of the time they aren't looking to put me in jail. But again, risk/reward - there's basically no benefit to doing anything extra but a huge penalty that 1% of the time...
I like that the police do their job and put people in jail, but if they are wanting to talk to me they are no longer on my side. Since there's a chance they want to deprive me of my freedoms (deserved or otherwise).
Whereas, I would not help them even if they politely ask me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
It's the same as the nice police officer knocking on the door. That happens on the doorstep with the door closed behind me - they are not setting foot inside the house.
And I honestly believe there is nothing "in plain sight" that they might see - I don't do drugs (well there's one bottle of scotch) and so on. But who knows what someone visiting left behind, or if they made red socks illegal last week.
The police must always be assumed to be the enemy looking for something to use to take away your freedoms. Yes, usually they aren't - but it's not worth the risk, the consequences are too high and there's no upside anyway.
or ABCFHKORSU would be far superior names...
No shit, sherlock.