Precious metals: mainly worth something because they are valued high, not much intrinsic value / use in industry.
Gold and silver see some very heavy usage in industry, especially high-tech and electronics; it also sees a lot of use in many lower-tech industries as well (and not just as decoration).
Huge fluctuations based mainly on economic expectations (http://insiderfortunes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gold1.jpg)
Yes and no - I daresay a lot of it is fluctuations of fiat currency relative to the metal in question. I will definitely agree that it isn't something you wouldn't want to base any short-term investments on, but over the long-haul, it does have a steady-yet-usable increase in value.
Water rights, mineral rights: these are worth nothing more than the government that issues them, just like banknotes.
Yes and no. Most folks on the east coast probably wouldn't see much use for the former, but in the Western US where you see a lot of desert and near-desert regions, water rights are more valuable than property rights. It is perfectly conceivable (and has happened) where someone buys property, only to discover that he/she cannot legally own or use the water that falls on it, flows through it, or sits underneath it.
If you flee the US, you can at least take a suitcase of dollars with you.
Question: If the US ever got to the point where you had to flee the place, what makes you think that a suitcase full of intaglio-printed paper (okay, linen) strips that may or may not be backed by a government that may or may not exist...would do you any good?
So, most of the tangible assets you mention have a worth that is greatly dependent on the current market whims and/or the government that backs them... just like banknotes.
Again, yes and no. The examples you gave make perfect sense (e.g. Eminent Domain condemnation), but the odds of that happening with a random piece of property are far, far lower than the odds of inflation. The odds of having a government do a house-to-house search for, say, all precious metals is also way lower than loss of currency strength (Why? because the logistics of doing so are too fantastically hellish to even contemplate, let alone succeed at).
If you think that's bad, try getting help on a server issue when you're not a Verizon customer.
Back in 2006, I was working for a DoD contractor, and discovered that our order emails to suppliers were bouncing as spam if it went to a Verizon address. We tried for a solid week to call everyone we could possibly find at Verizon that could help, but either got stonewalled, referred to some useless person, or (most often) shoved into the standard customer tech support queue. Mostly we were treated like either a social-engineering attempt, an idiot, or something similar.
Thing is, my employer ran the EMALL website, which all armed forces used to order anything which wasn't an actual weapon. Our index was bigger than Amazon's
Finally, I gave up and spoke with the managers at DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), laying out the problem to date. We then put out a system-wide notice to all DoD suppliers that if they wanted to sell something to the military, they'd damned well better use something other than a Verizon email account. Two weeks later, Verizon came out of the blue, desperately calling us asking what they could do to help us out. Turns out they weren't fully RFC-compliant at the time; they fixed it pretty quickly once they realized that a lot of their DoD-supplier customers were suddenly asking them how much the contract ETFs came to.
Sad part is, if my employer was some tiny company in BFE, there would likely still be a problem with the damned thing.
It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
Don't be silly. Without the US government, we'd be living in a Mad Max world, and money would be a moot point.
Actually, any working, viable government (be it local, regional, national, whatever) can prevent a "Mad Max world". The US government can theoretically be replaced by another government, making USD worthless. Now on a practical level, doing so would be messy and bloody, but the possibility is always there.
There is also instability within said government. Say inflation went apeshit and spiraled out of control. The US government in response decides to 're-calibrate' its money... suddenly $100,000 in USD equals 10 'Liberty Dollars', or whatever the new money happens to be. Joe Sixpack's life savings suddenly isn't worth so much. OTOH, if Mr. Sixpack happens to own his house and have a bunch of precious metals locked up securely? He's cushioned; the tangible assets carry the same intrinsic value as they had before.
Good point re. tulips. OTOH, tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate? As long as you don't get stupid about investing in them, and do so with your eyes open, you generally do better in the long run, and have a very good hedge against monetary crashes (and don't invest in perishable items - hence you avoid commodities).
I'm not saying that one should entirely abandon cash, stocks, etc. What I am saying is that relying on fiat currency (or anything purely based on it, like stocks) as your sole source of security is pretty damned risky. You may get lucky, or you may lose your shirt if inflation ever gets out of its cage.
Take the arguments over the constitutionality of certain laws (either existing or proposed). These can be deeply logical, and when you consider that new laws and precedents based on them can affect future outcomes and tests of those laws, and from there the future of the country at large changes? Well... yeah. It *is* important to watch this stuff before it becomes law, or at least to see how you can help (as a lawyer) mitigate any damages caused by it.
As you yourself mention viz. Obamacare, it does affect you eventually; problem is most folks, like yourself, look at lawyers as if they merely chased ambulances.
Maybe you should look around here a bit - you may be surprised by how many lawyers actually do consider this stuff - and ultimately do so on our behalf.
The ones in the building where I work are a mixed bag:
Attitude-wise, they range from egotistical asshats who deserve to be wrapped in chains and pitched into the river, to a couple of guys I know who are cheerful, friendly, and some of the kindest gents you'll ever meet... unless you're on the wrong end of their cases.
Nerd-wise? Some can dive damned deep into caselaw, to the point of sheer OCD - they argue legalities in casual settings like me and my co-workers debate offsite tape backups vs. offsite SAN snapshots. Those lawyers would qualify as pure nerds. Others are in it just for the ego boost, the money, the... wel, just like IT folk and programmers, really. Mixed bag.
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff, suddenly Bitcoin doesn't seem so fake after all.
(Though personally anyone who doesn't have some sort of tangible assets in their pile is asking for a total loss...)
This was not about the 80% spending rule. This was about the financial data on one individual, that just happened to be an employee at this company. If he worked at McDonalds, they'd have been pulling records on 60 million hamburgers.
Problem is, hamburgers aren't covered under HIPAA statutes, and don't/won't have privacy concerns.
It does not affect me. I'm just not that ego centered to be willing to accept that some people should live a life in absolute squalor before being killed by barbarians, by sheer coincidence of being born someplace different.
Given the bad assumptions you make (how do you know it'll be absolute squalor?), you are ego-centered, albeit in another aspect. There is also the demand that others live according to your standards.
For example, take the indigenous tribal societies in South America, Africa, etc. They're born, they live, and they die in conditions that haven't changed since around 15,000 BCE or so, and would easily qualify for the term "squalor" in almost every sense of the word. If that's how they live, who are you to demand they no longer do so?
Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.
As to the whole millitant extremist wanting a place to live they can run as they please, I do get that that is their motivation, I just don't see why we should allow it.
Why not? As long as they leave you and your community alone, how the hell does it affect you?
1) They're still getting paid. Everyone chips in because they might need it someday.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was - since when does a right require that others provide labor on your behalf, let alone specialized labor? What I'm getting at is this: a right should not require that I unduly burden others in order to exercise it.
2) This is just more "I'm fine so fuck you" mentality.
No, it is not, and your response shows that you do not understand what I was getting at. The question still stands: What if I choose not to participate? Every actual right as listed in the US Constitution does not force me to participate in or to exercise it. I can choose to be atheist or to not speak out in public. I can choose to allow the government unfettered access to my home, and even invite them to put up a few soldiers there. I can choose to not own a firearm. Result? No forced compliance - I don't face fines and penalties for deciding to not exercise any right as listed there.
However, in your "right" to healthcare, I am now forced to participate in that "right" whether I want it or not. This is the antithesis of an actual right.
Does this "right" include exorbitant measures to extend life? Would it include plastic surgery (you know, for self-esteem reasons)? Does this "right" diminish with age, since old people getting a scarce resource (e.g. organ transplants) wouldn't see nearly the benefit from it that a younger patient would? I could go on, but you get the point. Obviously there has to be limits on what should go into health care. That said, it's one thing to set those limits impersonally. It's another to see these limits in action when it's your spouse, parent, or child that runs up against them.
BTW - two things:
1) since when does a right include automatic access to another's labor? Speech, privacy, and all the fun rights listed in the US Constitution don't require another's labor, time, or money. Your "right" to health care does. Why is that?
2) If I choose not to exercise an enumerated right (again, c.f. US Constitution), it costs me nothing. If I choose not to exercise this "right" to health care, I still have to pay for it. What the hell?
Depends, though - the growing number of jobless would likely end up being entertained and sent to a perpetual merry-go-round of panem et circensus. You know, just like the unemployed/unemployable folks did back when that phrase was spoken natively.
We would spend our time, doing art, music, entertainment, or any other leisure related activity/job.
Judging by what we've seen so far among the perpetually unemployed, I'd expect the majority of folks would instead be doing XBox, drugs, and reality TV.
Not very cheerful, is it? You do inadvertently bring up a good question, though - what would people do with all that spare time? I suspect suicides would go up by quite a bit, as well as a lot of crime associated with people who are highly energetic but not all that bright...
"I can't believe that SCO bullshit went on for six fucking years."
Sometimes it takes time to kill something so that there's no chance of it coming back. Think of it like getting rid of fleas after your dog brought a few in.
Slashdot Mirror
Precious metals: mainly worth something because they are valued high, not much intrinsic value / use in industry.
Gold and silver see some very heavy usage in industry, especially high-tech and electronics; it also sees a lot of use in many lower-tech industries as well (and not just as decoration).
Huge fluctuations based mainly on economic expectations (http://insiderfortunes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Gold1.jpg)
Yes and no - I daresay a lot of it is fluctuations of fiat currency relative to the metal in question. I will definitely agree that it isn't something you wouldn't want to base any short-term investments on, but over the long-haul, it does have a steady-yet-usable increase in value.
Water rights, mineral rights: these are worth nothing more than the government that issues them, just like banknotes.
Yes and no. Most folks on the east coast probably wouldn't see much use for the former, but in the Western US where you see a lot of desert and near-desert regions, water rights are more valuable than property rights. It is perfectly conceivable (and has happened) where someone buys property, only to discover that he/she cannot legally own or use the water that falls on it, flows through it, or sits underneath it.
If you flee the US, you can at least take a suitcase of dollars with you.
Question: If the US ever got to the point where you had to flee the place, what makes you think that a suitcase full of intaglio-printed paper (okay, linen) strips that may or may not be backed by a government that may or may not exist ...would do you any good?
So, most of the tangible assets you mention have a worth that is greatly dependent on the current market whims and/or the government that backs them... just like banknotes.
Again, yes and no. The examples you gave make perfect sense (e.g. Eminent Domain condemnation), but the odds of that happening with a random piece of property are far, far lower than the odds of inflation. The odds of having a government do a house-to-house search for, say, all precious metals is also way lower than loss of currency strength (Why? because the logistics of doing so are too fantastically hellish to even contemplate, let alone succeed at).
If you think that's bad, try getting help on a server issue when you're not a Verizon customer.
Back in 2006, I was working for a DoD contractor, and discovered that our order emails to suppliers were bouncing as spam if it went to a Verizon address. We tried for a solid week to call everyone we could possibly find at Verizon that could help, but either got stonewalled, referred to some useless person, or (most often) shoved into the standard customer tech support queue. Mostly we were treated like either a social-engineering attempt, an idiot, or something similar.
Thing is, my employer ran the EMALL website, which all armed forces used to order anything which wasn't an actual weapon. Our index was bigger than Amazon's
Finally, I gave up and spoke with the managers at DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), laying out the problem to date. We then put out a system-wide notice to all DoD suppliers that if they wanted to sell something to the military, they'd damned well better use something other than a Verizon email account. Two weeks later, Verizon came out of the blue, desperately calling us asking what they could do to help us out. Turns out they weren't fully RFC-compliant at the time; they fixed it pretty quickly once they realized that a lot of their DoD-supplier customers were suddenly asking them how much the contract ETFs came to.
Sad part is, if my employer was some tiny company in BFE, there would likely still be a problem with the damned thing.
Ironically, it'd likely work just as well as hiring Indian help-desk staff.
I suspect Infosys (an Indian company) will likely end up stabbing their own jobs market in the gut with this one, should it take off.
That the studios won't get sued for it.
It's an even bigger shame that they won't get arrested for perjury, which is exactly what filing a known false DMCA takedown notice is supposed to result in.
Don't be silly. Without the US government, we'd be living in a Mad Max world, and money would be a moot point.
Actually, any working, viable government (be it local, regional, national, whatever) can prevent a "Mad Max world". The US government can theoretically be replaced by another government, making USD worthless. Now on a practical level, doing so would be messy and bloody, but the possibility is always there.
There is also instability within said government. Say inflation went apeshit and spiraled out of control. The US government in response decides to 're-calibrate' its money... suddenly $100,000 in USD equals 10 'Liberty Dollars', or whatever the new money happens to be. Joe Sixpack's life savings suddenly isn't worth so much. OTOH, if Mr. Sixpack happens to own his house and have a bunch of precious metals locked up securely? He's cushioned; the tangible assets carry the same intrinsic value as they had before.
Good point re. tulips. OTOH, tangible assets like precious metals, water rights, mineral rights, real estate? As long as you don't get stupid about investing in them, and do so with your eyes open, you generally do better in the long run, and have a very good hedge against monetary crashes (and don't invest in perishable items - hence you avoid commodities).
I'm not saying that one should entirely abandon cash, stocks, etc. What I am saying is that relying on fiat currency (or anything purely based on it, like stocks) as your sole source of security is pretty damned risky. You may get lucky, or you may lose your shirt if inflation ever gets out of its cage.
Maybe, maybe not. The stock-market aspect of Bitcoin tends to turn that "mint" into somewhat of a variable.
A particular situation?
Please, enlighten me.
Take the arguments over the constitutionality of certain laws (either existing or proposed). These can be deeply logical, and when you consider that new laws and precedents based on them can affect future outcomes and tests of those laws, and from there the future of the country at large changes? Well... yeah. It *is* important to watch this stuff before it becomes law, or at least to see how you can help (as a lawyer) mitigate any damages caused by it.
As you yourself mention viz. Obamacare, it does affect you eventually; problem is most folks, like yourself, look at lawyers as if they merely chased ambulances.
Maybe you should look around here a bit - you may be surprised by how many lawyers actually do consider this stuff - and ultimately do so on our behalf.
Sorta... Depends on which ones.
The ones in the building where I work are a mixed bag:
Attitude-wise, they range from egotistical asshats who deserve to be wrapped in chains and pitched into the river, to a couple of guys I know who are cheerful, friendly, and some of the kindest gents you'll ever meet... unless you're on the wrong end of their cases.
Nerd-wise? Some can dive damned deep into caselaw, to the point of sheer OCD - they argue legalities in casual settings like me and my co-workers debate offsite tape backups vs. offsite SAN snapshots. Those lawyers would qualify as pure nerds. Others are in it just for the ego boost, the money, the... wel, just like IT folk and programmers, really. Mixed bag.
Question is, which one is more "real"?
When you consider that USD and most other currencies are backed by nothing more than the governments that print/mint the stuff, suddenly Bitcoin doesn't seem so fake after all.
(Though personally anyone who doesn't have some sort of tangible assets in their pile is asking for a total loss...)
Actually, she gets her pick: Problem is they're all herbs.
This was not about the 80% spending rule. This was about the financial data on one individual, that just happened to be an employee at this company. If he worked at McDonalds, they'd have been pulling records on 60 million hamburgers.
Problem is, hamburgers aren't covered under HIPAA statutes, and don't/won't have privacy concerns.
Pity you didn't RTFA, because it says no such thing - even among climate scientists, let alone "scientists". ;)
Hiding in semantics is a cute trick, but what I meant still stands - I'll clarify it for you if that helps:
You either provide the best and strongest proof, or the number of acolytes to your presented theory mean nothing.
It does not affect me. I'm just not that ego centered to be willing to accept that some people should live a life in absolute squalor before being killed by barbarians, by sheer coincidence of being born someplace different.
Given the bad assumptions you make (how do you know it'll be absolute squalor?), you are ego-centered, albeit in another aspect. There is also the demand that others live according to your standards.
For example, take the indigenous tribal societies in South America, Africa, etc. They're born, they live, and they die in conditions that haven't changed since around 15,000 BCE or so, and would easily qualify for the term "squalor" in almost every sense of the word. If that's how they live, who are you to demand they no longer do so?
Actually, one scientist already destroyed this whole 'overwhelming numbers agree' argument.
Short version: It does not matter how many or what percentage of a given group agrees with a politically-charged position. What does matter is who is actually right. Anyone trying to make an argument based on majorities is doing so from a failing position. Don't just agree with each other - prove it irrefutably, else the first scientist to come along with better proof than yours will knock the whole house of cards down.
As to the whole millitant extremist wanting a place to live they can run as they please, I do get that that is their motivation, I just don't see why we should allow it.
Why not? As long as they leave you and your community alone, how the hell does it affect you?
1) They're still getting paid. Everyone chips in because they might need it someday.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was - since when does a right require that others provide labor on your behalf, let alone specialized labor? What I'm getting at is this: a right should not require that I unduly burden others in order to exercise it.
2) This is just more "I'm fine so fuck you" mentality.
No, it is not, and your response shows that you do not understand what I was getting at. The question still stands: What if I choose not to participate? Every actual right as listed in the US Constitution does not force me to participate in or to exercise it. I can choose to be atheist or to not speak out in public. I can choose to allow the government unfettered access to my home, and even invite them to put up a few soldiers there. I can choose to not own a firearm. Result? No forced compliance - I don't face fines and penalties for deciding to not exercise any right as listed there.
However, in your "right" to healthcare, I am now forced to participate in that "right" whether I want it or not. This is the antithesis of an actual right.
One small problem:
Define "Health care" as a "right".
Does this "right" include exorbitant measures to extend life? Would it include plastic surgery (you know, for self-esteem reasons)? Does this "right" diminish with age, since old people getting a scarce resource (e.g. organ transplants) wouldn't see nearly the benefit from it that a younger patient would? I could go on, but you get the point. Obviously there has to be limits on what should go into health care. That said, it's one thing to set those limits impersonally. It's another to see these limits in action when it's your spouse, parent, or child that runs up against them.
BTW - two things:
1) since when does a right include automatic access to another's labor? Speech, privacy, and all the fun rights listed in the US Constitution don't require another's labor, time, or money. Your "right" to health care does. Why is that?
2) If I choose not to exercise an enumerated right (again, c.f. US Constitution), it costs me nothing. If I choose not to exercise this "right" to health care, I still have to pay for it. What the hell?
I would say the FSF could make one, but I don't want it to have a beard.
Too late; it's already been invented.
Depends, though - the growing number of jobless would likely end up being entertained and sent to a perpetual merry-go-round of panem et circensus. You know, just like the unemployed/unemployable folks did back when that phrase was spoken natively.
We would spend our time, doing art, music, entertainment, or any other leisure related activity/job.
Judging by what we've seen so far among the perpetually unemployed, I'd expect the majority of folks would instead be doing XBox, drugs, and reality TV.
Not very cheerful, is it? You do inadvertently bring up a good question, though - what would people do with all that spare time? I suspect suicides would go up by quite a bit, as well as a lot of crime associated with people who are highly energetic but not all that bright...
Boss, hell - I'd settle for a Linux fembot with a penchant for evil.
Shit.
"I can't believe that SCO bullshit went on for six fucking years."
Sometimes it takes time to kill something so that there's no chance of it coming back. Think of it like getting rid of fleas after your dog brought a few in.