You know, stories like this make clear its a good thing the Nazis didn't win WWII. Just imagine if the Nazis had won, they might have tapped everyone's..... er..... Nevermind....
"When I was issued my Social Security card way back in the 60's, it said, in bold letters at the bottom of the card, "NOT FOR USE AS IDENTIFICATION"."
Back Then they didn't have room to add the word "YET" on the end...
I was using comcast to distribute Ron Paul material (made by volunteers) during this time. I dropped Comcast as soon as it became apparent they were delaying torrents.
Except that I'm willing to bet you that a citizen can't say to the policeman : "You are recording me with your car camera and I do not consent to being recorded, so turn it off."
We have a conflicting situation, the state automatically can record citizens via the car cams and the citizens have no choice. Whereas the same cannot be said about citizens recording public officials. (Even public officials who are being recorded by state hardware at the same time)
What happened to all that claptrap about if you've got nothing to hide you should'nt mind being taped? Isn't that the crap the authorities come back with when people complain about CCTV cameras? I'm guessing the COPS were videotaping the arrest with a car camera, if so, THEY have already CONSENTED to having their actions recorded while on the job.
They are employees of the public going about public business IN PUBLIC. They damn well better be able to be recorded or we are in serious trouble.
This is not about illegals, it is about control. Have "questionable" views about the war or anything else and viola, you are now unemployable. I'm sure it won't be long until they try to tie the no-fly list into it. Then not only will you be unable to work, but unable to travel as well.
If they hate us because we are free, pretty soon they won't have anything to hate us for.
"The gold standard doesn't do anything to prevent anyone from making loans, to the government or otherwise."
True to some extent. However when the currency was backed by something, it makes it much harder to go into debt as the entities loaning money can gain some idea of the possibility to repay the debt.
"Wait a second... Are you really under the impression that "the government" prints up more money and just adds it to the budget? That's hilarious. That's not how the Federal Reserve works. When the money supply is increased by lowering interest rates, the government doesn't get the money."
No I uderstand the Fed prints and releases money. HOWEVER, when the Government issues bonds, (i.e. creates debt) they are in effect printing said money, and using it. So yes indirectly they are.
"This effects the poor to a greater degree, as their wages do not typically keep up with inflation."
That depends a lot on how you define "the poor"; standards of living have consistently increased in the course of US history across pretty much all sectors (the jury is still out on the very recent), implying incomes have generally outpaced inflation."
Simply using "standard of living" as a comparision is IMO irrelevant if personal debt and other factors are not figured into the equation. Examples, in the 70's a family could be fully supported by ONE working parent in a blue collar job. Today it takes both parents. Personal debt has skyrocketed as people try to maintain their standard of living, and the savings rate has gone negative for the first time in our history.
I will assume you also see no problem with the Fed no longer publishing of the M3 money supply as well?
Investment banks sometimes like Gold because it's fairly difficult to create or (accidentally) destroy, so it's price is stable. But it's not magic; it's just shiny metal.
That is my point. When money was tied to gold the government had a very tough time going into debt. A U.S. note, was backed directly by gold. If the government did not have it they couldn't print it.
Without a limiting factor on the printing presses government is free to create more money, thus devaluing the money already in circulation. This effects the poor to a greater degree, as their wages do not typically keep up with inflation.
And in other news, Satan has relocated to Arizona. When asked to comment on the change of venue, he stated : "There's only enough room for one of us down there, and though I invented Lawyers this guy owns them all."
Nowhere did I say inflation is a conspiracy. What I said was that inflation is caused by the creation of new "money" which is added into the pool of the existing money supply. This is done primarily IMO because the government can create money with no strings and those in office stay in office by spending money on their districts and or campaign financiers.
"As gold is not terribly useful compared to food, shelter, or what have you, that says little abut the buying power of a dollar" Really? so you are now arguing that what the world financial markets use are a hedge against inflation, says little or nothing about the value of the instrument from which it protects? Interesting, you must have some deep understanding of economics that all those market firms do not (Especially since they all suggest you diversify your holdings to include some gold etc).
As to banks creating money, the only thing they did was create paper promisary notes. Granted many people took them (just as people accept reserve notes now) however lawful money was and still is gold and silver.
As for measuring inflation, I said that the government seems to change how they measure inflation whenever the current formula shows inflation rising above 6% or so. Indeed they have many reasons to do this (entitlement cost of living adjustments).
Regarding your argument about using postal rates, I said there are other ways to measure it, and gave an example. Still, you seem to contradict yourself.
"Mail delivery has gotten far cheaper during the period described thanks to automation, which is why government subsidy of the postal service has declined."
"The price of a first class stamp has remained relatively constant in relation to the buying power of that money vs other goods only because postal rates are artificially set by a byzantine congressional commision process that forces that to be the case."
So delivering mail has gotten cheaper, but you think the price of stamps should be higher?? If moving letters has gotten cheaper, then the price of a stamp should remain constant, or go down. Yet that is not the case. Indeed your argument that comparing the cost of stamps is invalid because some "byzantine commission" sets the rates would imply that using the cost of postage AS A guage UNDERSTATES inflationary pressures.
The current inflationary measure is complete BS, it weights goods in a disproportional manner to their rise and fall, not to a fixed basket of goods.
Look back in our history, before the government could print fiat money, people still saved, and banks still paid interest. The current system is IMO unsustainable. If you look at the debt and the unfunded entitlements something will have to give in the near future, and the likely result will be a dollar currency crisis, as the foreign governments dump their dollar reserves.
"I'm not sure I understand the distinction you appear to draw between saving money and investing. Return rates from even very low risk savings instruments avaiable to even the smallest investors exceed the rate of inflation by a significant margin."
This only is true because every time the "official" inflationary figure exceeds 5-6% the formula calculating inflation is CHANGED. For example, a better gauge of inflation could be something like this based on postal rates.
If you stop to think about it, with greater automation and improved efficiency it should be cheaper to mail a letter. Since the postal rates keep increasing for essentially the same service much of the change in price should be due to inflation.
"Nor do I think it's reasonable to describe inflation as a stealth "tax". Nobody takes the value you lose to inflation; it's just gone."
No, value does not just evaporate. You lose value to inflation because of supply and demand. The government prints money (essentially creating value from nothing) but this means there are more dollars out there, hence an increase in supply and thus a decline in value.
Originally (until 1913) the government could only print money based upon gold reserves. The notes were US notes, and were redeemable in "lawful money" Because the government was limited by law, the value of a dollar stayed relatively stable for long periods of time, so savings (either in a bank of the mattress) was viable. You knew the value of a dollar would still be a dollar 10 years hence.
Inflation is a stealth tax because now the government can print a virtually unlimited supply of new dollars to pay for whatever it wishes. These dollars are created out of thin air, backed by nothing, and when they are put into circulation the reduce the value of notes already in circulation e.g. "inflation".
The government is essentially taking value away from the dollars you and everyone else owns when they print additional ones. What else can you call this transfer of value from an individual to a government but taxation?
It hurts the poor disproportionately because they cannot afford to have a hedge against inflation (which the rich can do).
There are many examples throughout history of the same scenario as we are on, and they ALWAYS have ended badly.
You do realize the government hurts they poor don't you? The biggest example of this is the federal reserve system and the entrenched inflation policies. With the current policy, it becomes a bad proposition for anyone to simply save money in the bank as its value is less every year. Since the lower income brackets typically do not have money to invest, their primary option has been to save money instead.
This is in effect a stealth RECURRING tax on money that you and I have already paid taxes on.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why all those people who say "I don't mind if they snoop cause I've got nothing to hide."
are asshats.....
I believe we have found a new definition for Hubris......
All yer antimatter is belong to us - Cern
All your freedoms is belong to USA....
or
In Corporate Amerika wires tap you....
All your freedom is belong to us....
Get a pair of cisco 1200's on ebay.
(You should be able to get them under 60.00 each)
Get a good pair of outdoor antennas.
Should be good to go.
You know, stories like this make clear its a good thing the Nazis didn't win WWII. Just imagine if the Nazis had won, they might have tapped everyone's.....
er..... Nevermind....
new meme -
Imagine an AirWolf cluster of these......
Politicians make better terrorists, and they've been doing it for far longer.....
"When I was issued my Social Security card way back in the 60's, it said, in bold letters at the bottom of the card, "NOT FOR USE AS IDENTIFICATION"." Back Then they didn't have room to add the word "YET" on the end...
Smells like Freedom!!
Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave,
o'er the Land of the Free,
Or the home of the SLAVE......
So now we know why the Borg were so hot for ASSimilation.....
Ta Dum Dum!!
I was using comcast to distribute Ron Paul material (made by volunteers) during this time. I dropped Comcast as soon as it became apparent they were delaying torrents.
This is obviously fiction!
/. could NEVER have one of those WIFE thingies!
Everyone knows someone on
In Red-state Amerika, the Gub'ment watches You...
Except that I'm willing to bet you that a citizen can't say to the policeman :
"You are recording me with your car camera and I do not consent to being recorded, so turn it off."
We have a conflicting situation, the state automatically can record citizens via the car cams and the citizens have no choice. Whereas the same cannot be said about citizens recording
public officials. (Even public officials who are being recorded by state hardware at the same time)
What happened to all that claptrap about if you've got nothing to hide you should'nt mind being taped?
Isn't that the crap the authorities come back with when people complain about CCTV cameras?
I'm guessing the COPS were videotaping the arrest with a car camera, if so, THEY have already CONSENTED
to having their actions recorded while on the job.
They are employees of the public going about public business IN PUBLIC. They damn well better be able to be recorded
or we are in serious trouble.
This is not about illegals, it is about control. Have "questionable" views about the war or anything else and viola, you are now unemployable. I'm sure it won't be long until they try to tie the no-fly list into it. Then not only will you be unable to work, but unable to travel as well.
If they hate us because we are free, pretty soon they won't have anything to hate us for.
Now we know why Skynet loses, the terminators were all searching for Bot-Pr0n!!
"The gold standard doesn't do anything to prevent anyone from making loans, to the government or otherwise."
True to some extent. However when the currency was backed by something, it makes it much harder
to go into debt as the entities loaning money can gain some idea of the possibility to repay
the debt.
"Wait a second... Are you really under the impression that "the government" prints up more money and just adds it to the budget? That's hilarious. That's not how the Federal Reserve works. When the money supply is increased by lowering interest rates, the government doesn't get the money."
No I uderstand the Fed prints and releases money. HOWEVER, when the Government issues bonds,
(i.e. creates debt) they are in effect printing said money, and using it. So yes indirectly
they are.
"This effects the poor to a greater degree, as their wages do not typically keep up with inflation."
That depends a lot on how you define "the poor"; standards of living have consistently increased in the course of US history across pretty much all sectors (the jury is still out on the very recent), implying incomes have generally outpaced inflation."
Simply using "standard of living" as a comparision is IMO irrelevant if personal debt and other factors are not figured into the equation. Examples, in the 70's a family could be fully supported by ONE working parent in a blue collar job. Today it takes both parents. Personal debt has skyrocketed as people try to maintain their standard of living, and the savings
rate has gone negative for the first time in our history.
I will assume you also see no problem with the Fed no longer publishing of the M3 money supply as well?
Investment banks sometimes like Gold because it's fairly difficult to create or (accidentally) destroy, so it's price is stable. But it's not magic; it's just shiny metal.
That is my point. When money was tied to gold the government had a very tough time going into debt. A U.S. note, was backed directly by gold. If the government did not have it they couldn't print it.
Without a limiting factor on the printing presses government is free to create more money, thus devaluing the money already in circulation. This effects the poor to a greater degree, as their wages do not typically keep up with inflation.
And in other news, Satan has relocated to Arizona. When asked to comment on the change of venue,
he stated : "There's only enough room for one of us down there, and though I invented Lawyers this guy owns them all."
Nowhere did I say inflation is a conspiracy. What I said was that inflation is caused by the creation of new "money" which is added into the pool of the existing money supply. This is done primarily IMO because the government can create money with no strings and those in office stay in office by spending money on their districts and or campaign financiers.
"As gold is not terribly useful compared to food, shelter, or what have you, that says little abut the buying power of a dollar" Really? so you are now arguing that what the world financial markets use are a hedge against inflation, says little or nothing about the value of the instrument from which it protects? Interesting, you must have some deep understanding of economics that all those market firms do not (Especially since they all suggest you diversify your holdings to include some gold etc).
As to banks creating money, the only thing they did was create paper promisary notes. Granted many people took them (just as people accept reserve notes now) however lawful money was and still is gold and silver.
As for measuring inflation, I said that the government seems to change how they measure inflation whenever the current formula shows inflation rising above 6% or so. Indeed they have many reasons to do this (entitlement cost of living adjustments).
Regarding your argument about using postal rates, I said there are other ways to measure it, and gave an example. Still, you seem to contradict yourself.
"Mail delivery has gotten far cheaper during the period described thanks to automation, which is why government subsidy of the postal service has declined."
"The price of a first class stamp has remained relatively constant in relation to the buying power of that money vs other goods only because postal rates are artificially set by a byzantine congressional commision process that forces that to be the case."
So delivering mail has gotten cheaper, but you think the price of stamps should be higher?? If moving letters has gotten cheaper, then the price of a stamp should remain constant, or go down. Yet that is not the case. Indeed your argument that comparing the cost of stamps is invalid because some "byzantine commission" sets the rates would imply that using the cost of postage AS A guage UNDERSTATES inflationary pressures.
The current inflationary measure is complete BS, it weights goods in a disproportional manner to their rise and fall, not to a fixed basket of goods.
Look back in our history, before the government could print fiat money, people still saved, and banks still paid interest. The current system is IMO unsustainable. If you look at the debt and
the unfunded entitlements something will have to give in the near future, and the likely result
will be a dollar currency crisis, as the foreign governments dump their dollar reserves.
"I'm not sure I understand the distinction you appear to draw between saving money and investing. Return rates from even very low risk savings instruments avaiable to even the smallest investors exceed the rate of inflation by a significant margin."
This only is true because every time the "official" inflationary figure exceeds 5-6% the formula calculating inflation is CHANGED. For example, a better gauge of inflation could be something like this based on postal rates.
If you stop to think about it, with greater automation and improved efficiency it should be cheaper to mail a letter. Since the postal rates keep increasing for essentially the same service much of the change in price should be due to inflation.
"Nor do I think it's reasonable to describe inflation as a stealth "tax". Nobody takes the value you lose to inflation; it's just gone."
No, value does not just evaporate. You lose value to inflation because of supply and demand. The government prints money (essentially creating value from nothing) but this means there are more dollars out there, hence an increase in supply and thus a decline in value.
Originally (until 1913) the government could only print money based upon gold reserves. The notes were US notes, and were redeemable in "lawful money" Because the government was limited by law, the value of a dollar stayed relatively stable for long periods of time, so savings (either in a bank of the mattress) was viable. You knew the value of a dollar would still be a dollar 10 years hence.
Inflation is a stealth tax because now the government can print a virtually unlimited supply of new dollars to pay for whatever it wishes. These dollars are created out of thin air, backed by nothing, and when they are put into circulation the reduce the value of notes already in circulation e.g. "inflation".
The government is essentially taking value away from the dollars you and everyone else owns when they print additional ones. What else can you call this transfer of value from an individual to a government but taxation?
It hurts the poor disproportionately because they cannot afford to have a hedge against inflation (which the rich can do).
There are many examples throughout history of the same scenario as we are on, and they ALWAYS have ended badly.
You do realize the government hurts they poor don't you? The biggest example of this is the federal reserve system and the entrenched inflation policies. With the current policy, it becomes a bad proposition for anyone to simply save money in the bank as its value is less every year. Since the lower income brackets typically do not have money to invest, their primary option has been to save money instead.
This is in effect a stealth RECURRING tax on money that you and I have already paid taxes on.