A mortgage is backed by a PROMISE to cede the house on non-payment. uhuh. Can you define the value of the house? Yesterday, it was worth 100,000. Today, when it's auctioned, it's worth 50,000. That's now 50,000 worth of non backed cash. What's a new car worth once it's been driven off the lot?
So, what's exactly wrong with backing something with a promise? Not everyone is as trustworthy or as responsible as you or I. And I don't have a problem with credit at all. It's credit backed currency I have a problem with, for various reasons.
Not true. Stock market nominal (not-inflation-adjusted) returns have been ~11% since 1927, while inflation (CPI) has averaged ~3.5%, tops I think you missed my point. If the money supply to the economy is increasing at 10% per year, the 3% which hits the high street and increases commodity prices is called inflation. The 7% stock market increases are called growth. In reality it's mostly the same phenomenon in different places. Whether the liquidity goes into the stock market, high street inflation, bonds or whatever is frankly culture, psychology etc.
They don't multiply anything. You're simply operating on the assumption that the money you have in the bank actually exists which it doesn't. Well now you're getting philosophical.
You give them your money so they can loan it out to other people, thats how it works. uhuh. I give them 100 in cash. They take that cash and loan 95 out. Strangely, it comes back to them because that's what you do with money. They now have 195 on deposit. They get to loan out 185 of that, which comes back again as more deposits. Giving them deposits of 380 and loans worth 280, on an initial deposit of 100. Repeat until total money equals up to 2000 for a 5% ratio.
How is that not multiplication? They are multiplying the money and the debt.
Actually its because in many cases its the merchant not the bank that is liable for fraudulent transactions. So they literary lose nothing from fraud in monetary terms and possibly even make money from fraud. That's just icing. There's nothing for them to lose, maybe a bit of interest.
All of the money it lent is backed. LOL. Yes of course... What's it backed by?
A promise.
Really that's it. The monetary system is backed by trillions of promises. No problems there then, and, credit card debt is unsecured (even if that wasn't a farce).
Even if no one, at any positive interest rate, ever borrowed money, you could still grow your money by buying shares of businesses. All that's necessary for the money to grow is that people not save all of their money. Most of the growth on the stock market is simply inflation. Increased supply of money making it's way into the the investment markets. It just isn't called inflation. Sure some companies increase efficiency and profitability, but most of it's just soaked up liquidity.
So anyway. Back on topic. There's really no need to worry about credit card fraud, the credit card companies don't care so why should anyone else? Just check the statement with a fine toothed comb and make sure they take any fraud hit and not you. I've already explained they aren't actually taking a loss, just a slight reduction in profitability.
Hell, I wouldn't even worry all that much about declaring bankruptcy. It used to mean virtually the theft of gold, hence the rather nasty punishments. These days all it means is a little bit more inflation.
They don't create any money in this way at all Eh, yes that's exactly what they do. As long as they hold 3% worth of deposits they can multiply it, in this case ultimately about 30 times as they loan it out.
How else do you explain the fact that the credit card companies aren't breaking down the doors of the fraudsters and auctioning off everything they own? It's because credit card fraud is no big deal.
In fact, in the UK the police aren't even told about credit card fraud.
Okay, whatever manipulation of the monetary system the Federal Reserve does, individual member banks aren't actually allowed to print money at will. They banks still have to pay interest on the borrowed money. I hope you were joking about that. Yes they are, they really do get permission to magic money into existence. They don't have to borrow it from The Reserve, or pay interest on it. The limit they can magic is based on their reserve ratio (seems to be about 3% for most banks) and the amount of deposits they can acquire. I couldn't believe it either at first. I wish I'd understood this while I was at school, I'd be a banker now.
Money doesn't grow on trees, it's easier than that, it's magic'd into existence.
Back on topic. This does explain the bank and credit card companies extremely relaxed attitude to credit card fraud. They're not actually taking a loss when they money gets spent, and then queried, the money has been magic'd. They are simply not going to make as much profit as they might have.
No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile.
Motorola Canopy. Designed for exactly that purpose. I'm sure there are competing products.
It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply. Rubbish. However the barrier to entry is high and the cable companies and telcos have spent a huge amount of money putting a network in place. Any new entrant to the market is going to have to see long term profitability. If revenue levels are too low they won't bother.
Human perception is as good as it gets. Anything living 100 billon years from now will be so different from us that it may perceive the world around it in completely different ways, and will accordingly have different technology for astronomy and everything else. The eye has developed independently several times on earth. You only need two for distance perception. We are bipedal because a 3rd leg would be unnecessary, and 1 wouldn't be up to the task of allowing us to survive. We needed to free up two limbs to act as manipulators. Ears allow us to hear prey and predators, again only two required for distance and direction perception.
Basically, there's good reason to believe that any intelligent technologically sophisticated life which exists won't be entirely dissimilar.
Nah, the bigger problem would seem to be that as far as we know we are the only sentients capable of taking advantage of the information currently available... which places a huge responsiblity on our shoulders. Christ, stars don't last that long, what chances do you think there are for information we can store? We can barely archive it for 20 years never mind 100 billion. Then there's the issue of finding a way of transmitting it or making it available.
Basically we have no responsibility to anyone but ourselves. Any species which exist in 100 billion years can go and get stuffed.
You can't trust the person, you can't trust the hardware or the software you can't trust anything which comes back from the client machine.
Da fix? A cross game registry of gamers with identities linked to real addresses and bank details. Something which all the online games can query, though I'd go with hashed values for bank details/address etc rather than real ones. You get caught cheating, you get marked as such. To get rid of the marking you need a new identity.
Will it stop it? Mmm look at the athletes who take drugs, I doubt it. What getting caught would do though is ruin the gaming life in all the games which use the registry. Gaming environments could be split into two areas. One for trustworthy gamers, one for cheating scum.
Stories like the ones above are the exception, not the rule... No, they're not, I mentioned a few because I couldn't be bothered posting them all. NICE exists specifically to ration healthcare. To cut the budget.
I'll never understand how such hateful, inhuman monsters as yourself can exist Well, we're born, in the same way as retarded little morons like yourself. The big difference, is, we're taught to think for ourselves.
You'd rather have 18% of the people go without care, and another 20 or 30% go with substandard care, then face A couple of points.
1: Even without health insurance, Americans get care. 2: If you read my other post you'll see I proposed compulsory health insurance system which is used in other EU countries which provides benefits of both a private health sector and universal coverage.
the HORRORS of a system where so few people receive poor care that when it happens it's newsworthy. Sorry, but those are just the tip of the iceberg, used as examples. The real story of the NHS is the waiting. Even with tens of billions of pounds of going in, there are huge waiting lists for service and huge bureaucracies in place to move patients from one queue to another in order to meet government targets.
Instead of 30% getting substandard care, it's closer to 100% in countries with fully socialised healthcare. And this is with an astronomical budget. The NHS budget is 105 billion pounds, 250 billion dollars every year. That's 1750 pounds (3500 dollars) per person per year.
With any luck, you'll be downsized and get cancer on the same day, and you'll finally develop that special form of self-servint empathy that only a conservative fallen on hard times can have. I'm freelance, healthy and a liberal.
Do you really want the people making decisions for you at the most vulnerable point in your life to be motivated by how much money they can make off of you, rather than what would be best for you? This doesn't change in a fully socialised health care system:
Etc, there's several more examples. In a socialised system, instead of making money off you, the care depends on how much you're going to cost the budget. Exactly the same thing as commercial healthcare.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that not multiplication? They are multiplying the money and the debt. Actually its because in many cases its the merchant not the bank that is liable for fraudulent transactions. So they literary lose nothing from fraud in monetary terms and possibly even make money from fraud. That's just icing. There's nothing for them to lose, maybe a bit of interest.
A promise.
Really that's it. The monetary system is backed by trillions of promises. No problems there then, and, credit card debt is unsecured (even if that wasn't a farce). Even if no one, at any positive interest rate, ever borrowed money, you could still grow your money by buying shares of businesses. All that's necessary for the money to grow is that people not save all of their money. Most of the growth on the stock market is simply inflation. Increased supply of money making it's way into the the investment markets. It just isn't called inflation. Sure some companies increase efficiency and profitability, but most of it's just soaked up liquidity.
So anyway. Back on topic. There's really no need to worry about credit card fraud, the credit card companies don't care so why should anyone else? Just check the statement with a fine toothed comb and make sure they take any fraud hit and not you. I've already explained they aren't actually taking a loss, just a slight reduction in profitability.
Hell, I wouldn't even worry all that much about declaring bankruptcy. It used to mean virtually the theft of gold, hence the rather nasty punishments. These days all it means is a little bit more inflation.
I agree actually, credit is useful. My problem is that money itself is made out of it. It isn't necessary, or particularly healthy.
How else do you explain the fact that the credit card companies aren't breaking down the doors of the fraudsters and auctioning off everything they own? It's because credit card fraud is no big deal.
In fact, in the UK the police aren't even told about credit card fraud.
http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/financial-news-Ba
And that is because it's not real money. It's magic'd money.
Very few people understand this yet, which is why there's still outrage over the new rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6220000/n
Money doesn't grow on trees, it's easier than that, it's magic'd into existence.
Back on topic. This does explain the bank and credit card companies extremely relaxed attitude to credit card fraud. They're not actually taking a loss when they money gets spent, and then queried, the money has been magic'd. They are simply not going to make as much profit as they might have.
Sorry mate. After 25 it's all down hill. The body starts atrophying and the mind goes with it.
Not 79? Surely you mean 79 14 year olds. Methinks you have miscounted. Can't possibly be 80.
Except that banks magic money into existence so they're not actually losing anything (maybe but a little profit) when someone commits fraud.
Not here it isn't.
So... Old fogeys then.
Don't worry in my universe the cheating scum would still be able to play.
Basically, there's good reason to believe that any intelligent technologically sophisticated life which exists won't be entirely dissimilar.
Basically we have no responsibility to anyone but ourselves. Any species which exist in 100 billion years can go and get stuffed.
You can't trust the person, you can't trust the hardware or the software you can't trust anything which comes back from the client machine.
Da fix? A cross game registry of gamers with identities linked to real addresses and bank details. Something which all the online games can query, though I'd go with hashed values for bank details/address etc rather than real ones. You get caught cheating, you get marked as such. To get rid of the marking you need a new identity.
Will it stop it? Mmm look at the athletes who take drugs, I doubt it. What getting caught would do though is ruin the gaming life in all the games which use the registry. Gaming environments could be split into two areas. One for trustworthy gamers, one for cheating scum.
1: Even without health insurance, Americans get care.
2: If you read my other post you'll see I proposed compulsory health insurance system which is used in other EU countries which provides benefits of both a private health sector and universal coverage. the HORRORS of a system where so few people receive poor care that when it happens it's newsworthy. Sorry, but those are just the tip of the iceberg, used as examples. The real story of the NHS is the waiting. Even with tens of billions of pounds of going in, there are huge waiting lists for service and huge bureaucracies in place to move patients from one queue to another in order to meet government targets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3749801.stm
Instead of 30% getting substandard care, it's closer to 100% in countries with fully socialised healthcare. And this is with an astronomical budget. The NHS budget is 105 billion pounds, 250 billion dollars every year. That's 1750 pounds (3500 dollars) per person per year. With any luck, you'll be downsized and get cancer on the same day, and you'll finally develop that special form of self-servint empathy that only a conservative fallen on hard times can have. I'm freelance, healthy and a liberal.
The sim only bothers to calculate the result when we look at it.
There are plenty of printers and manufacturers out there. All you've got to do is check out the cost per page.
http://news.netdoctor.co.uk/news_detail.php?id=18
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3196134.stm
http://www.nice.org.uk/
Etc, there's several more examples. In a socialised system, instead of making money off you, the care depends on how much you're going to cost the budget. Exactly the same thing as commercial healthcare.
The future of "the technological singularity":
/ 30/1247249
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06
HTH
Don't care. If something is self sterilising it'll die out quite naturally, to be replaced by something fitter to survive.
He seems to think that genes exist to serve species.