Keep it up. Before the US dollar was the world's reserve, it was the British pound. Look how well that worked out for them. Currencies come, and currencies go. But actually paying for your imports for a change instead of just printing up money for them is going to be a real bitch for you. I can't wait to see how that works out.
The answer is of course whoever successfully files the patent. Since computers aren't given to going down to the patent office, filling out forms, paying the fees, etc, I would say the humans have a much better chance of getting the patents than the computers.
Must be an Apple user. You're surprised? But don't worry he'll choke on his latte soon when he reads the financial column and watches his 401(k) evaporate again. October is coming...
OK, I see your point and I agree. My point is, however, that money is money at the beginning but because of this tax then at the "end" it stops being money. Therefore it's not just a tax where, all things being equal, the value of money is not changed. It's also a destruction of the intrinsic value of money, which causes the tax to be "raised" in an exponential fashion until there is absolutely no value left.
Yes and no. There will always be demand for real estate - it just might not appreciate as fast as it did during the bubble anymore (but the bubble wasn't just a real estate one anyway). But the plunge of the dollar doesn't change the fact that currently there is a 6 month supply of new homes on the market. Supply is still greater than demand. What's more, demand should fall off pretty sharply if there were a major economic collapse. BUT if you have a roof over your head that's paid for, what do you care?
I would argue that the people who lose are the ones with more dollars...
As for assets inflating in value that's not true, because at the same time your asset is inflating, everything else is inflating too. So if you sell your house for 100% profit congratulations, but the next house you want to buy will cost you 100% more too... So the net gain is nothing. While it's true that some items inflate faster than others and some hold on to their value more, you get the general idea.
The risk with assets is that in times of economic instability there is also political/civil instability. Property gets stolen, vandalized or destroyed. Gold gets confiscated (by the government, usually). Etc. Usually there's nowhere to hide except outside the country in question. Since US dollars were exported all over the world and are currently perceived as "safe" even by peasants in Ecuador, this is why the destruction of the currency has taken so long. But if the dollar falls it is going to have world-wide implications because not only will Warren Buffet be holding on to billions of dollars worth of toilet paper but also Pepe in Colombia will have his "savings" wiped out too.
On the other hand poor countries are used to being poor. So I am staying put. I don't think it will be so bad here as in the privileged and self-entitled US when Weimar II happens.
Except it also destroys the value of said currency. So it's not really a "tax" as much as its a destruction. Because after a while it doesn't matter how much or how fast you inflate, no one wants that currency anymore. 100% tax on nothing is still nothing. If you haven't diversified out of dollars and into something else by now, you are screwed.
I can't believe something this idiotic is on slashdot. Hey, why stop at 5 trillion? Why not make a $5000 trillion coin, and then we'll all be rich, right?
Moreover I can buy a game and install it on my desktop and my laptop, and play it on either machine so long as I don't try to play both at once. Makes sense to me. Companies that feel they are entitled to a "per cpu" license can just go screw themselves.
People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Price is determined by supply and demand. Whether it is "out of reach" of people or not depends on many economic conditions around the world, not just in your country. As a government you can choose to play with the price via taxes or subsidies, but you can't control the price unless you are the major producer (like say Saudi Arabia). And even then OPEC is never successful in controlling prices for very long.
Now if the price is "out of reach" of everyone then supply and demand states that it won't stay there long because no one will buy it. However if the price is out of reach of your population but well within reach of, say, China's population - then what will happen is that your standard of living will be forced to adjust to the new reality of China being more wealthy than your country. Wealth being defined by purchasing power and standard of living, not how many "zeros" there are on a stack of paper fiat currency. And price will have no reason to drop because people will still be buying it. Only those people will be Asian instead of occidental.
While I don't think we're at that stage yet, bear in mind that the US economy is barely growing at 1-2% IF the Fed is to be believed (that's another story), while China is still growing at 10% per year despite current fuel prices. That means they need 10% more oil every year. Right now they use about 22% of the world's oil. Next year it will be almost 24%, and the year after, almost 27% and so forth. Every year China will need more oil. Every year there will be less oil in the world. And we haven't even talked about India yet. No, pretty soon the West is going to find out that they really are a minority, and resources are going to be re-allocated accordingly.
The cost of fuel will reduce consumption all by itself. In fact this is already happening. Fuel costs are now a very real factor influencing holiday travel decisions, considering the (according to the Fed: lack of) inflation and lack of an increase in household income. Eventually travel will be restricted to necessity only. Certainly not the society we intended to build, but it's the direction we're headed in. Strangely enough other countries who are used to being poor aren't suffering as much - because they're used to everything being out of reach or too expensive. It's the Americans who will no longer be able support their wasteful lifestyle and standard of living who are going to get a hell of an adjustment. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming "American spring"...
Slashdot Mirror
Keep it up. Before the US dollar was the world's reserve, it was the British pound. Look how well that worked out for them. Currencies come, and currencies go. But actually paying for your imports for a change instead of just printing up money for them is going to be a real bitch for you. I can't wait to see how that works out.
His and hers? No, she gets all the closet space, and he gets all the RAM.
You should see what I was forced to do with punch cards as a boy... (shudder)
The answer is of course whoever successfully files the patent. Since computers aren't given to going down to the patent office, filling out forms, paying the fees, etc, I would say the humans have a much better chance of getting the patents than the computers.
Instead of "Hardware Malfunction: SYSTEM HALTED"
Must be an Apple user. You're surprised? But don't worry he'll choke on his latte soon when he reads the financial column and watches his 401(k) evaporate again. October is coming...
The group with the lowest IQ of all is the group that actually believes this study, regardless of browser type.
Worth half? I guess my inflation is a little higher than your inflation...
Three wars? You forget that US drones are also currently bombing Pakistan and more recently, Yemen. Or is it not a war when a drone does it?
Or is a billion dollars really so little nowadays.
OK, I see your point and I agree. My point is, however, that money is money at the beginning but because of this tax then at the "end" it stops being money. Therefore it's not just a tax where, all things being equal, the value of money is not changed. It's also a destruction of the intrinsic value of money, which causes the tax to be "raised" in an exponential fashion until there is absolutely no value left.
Yes and no. There will always be demand for real estate - it just might not appreciate as fast as it did during the bubble anymore (but the bubble wasn't just a real estate one anyway). But the plunge of the dollar doesn't change the fact that currently there is a 6 month supply of new homes on the market. Supply is still greater than demand. What's more, demand should fall off pretty sharply if there were a major economic collapse. BUT if you have a roof over your head that's paid for, what do you care?
I would argue that the people who lose are the ones with more dollars...
As for assets inflating in value that's not true, because at the same time your asset is inflating, everything else is inflating too. So if you sell your house for 100% profit congratulations, but the next house you want to buy will cost you 100% more too... So the net gain is nothing. While it's true that some items inflate faster than others and some hold on to their value more, you get the general idea.
The risk with assets is that in times of economic instability there is also political/civil instability. Property gets stolen, vandalized or destroyed. Gold gets confiscated (by the government, usually). Etc. Usually there's nowhere to hide except outside the country in question. Since US dollars were exported all over the world and are currently perceived as "safe" even by peasants in Ecuador, this is why the destruction of the currency has taken so long. But if the dollar falls it is going to have world-wide implications because not only will Warren Buffet be holding on to billions of dollars worth of toilet paper but also Pepe in Colombia will have his "savings" wiped out too.
On the other hand poor countries are used to being poor. So I am staying put. I don't think it will be so bad here as in the privileged and self-entitled US when Weimar II happens.
I understand that this is like the RIAA where the money only flows in one direction. And don't worry, that is not towards you.
Except it also destroys the value of said currency. So it's not really a "tax" as much as its a destruction. Because after a while it doesn't matter how much or how fast you inflate, no one wants that currency anymore. 100% tax on nothing is still nothing. If you haven't diversified out of dollars and into something else by now, you are screwed.
I'd say this is not a band aid. It's more like a clamp on the aorta.
I can't believe something this idiotic is on slashdot. Hey, why stop at 5 trillion? Why not make a $5000 trillion coin, and then we'll all be rich, right?
Yeah explain that one to Joe Sixpack and his trailer-park friends.
il-2, doh, dunno what I was thinking. Maybe got confused with "1946" somehow.
Not since they bought SSI I think. Yeah ok IL-76 was decent back in the day, despite the lack of a real campaign generator.
Moreover I can buy a game and install it on my desktop and my laptop, and play it on either machine so long as I don't try to play both at once. Makes sense to me. Companies that feel they are entitled to a "per cpu" license can just go screw themselves.
Well I'm 43, so for me, "always" means about 40 years. You want to nit-pick go right ahead. Curious you should mention the 70's though...
People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.
Price is determined by supply and demand. Whether it is "out of reach" of people or not depends on many economic conditions around the world, not just in your country. As a government you can choose to play with the price via taxes or subsidies, but you can't control the price unless you are the major producer (like say Saudi Arabia). And even then OPEC is never successful in controlling prices for very long.
Now if the price is "out of reach" of everyone then supply and demand states that it won't stay there long because no one will buy it. However if the price is out of reach of your population but well within reach of, say, China's population - then what will happen is that your standard of living will be forced to adjust to the new reality of China being more wealthy than your country. Wealth being defined by purchasing power and standard of living, not how many "zeros" there are on a stack of paper fiat currency. And price will have no reason to drop because people will still be buying it. Only those people will be Asian instead of occidental.
While I don't think we're at that stage yet, bear in mind that the US economy is barely growing at 1-2% IF the Fed is to be believed (that's another story), while China is still growing at 10% per year despite current fuel prices. That means they need 10% more oil every year. Right now they use about 22% of the world's oil. Next year it will be almost 24%, and the year after, almost 27% and so forth. Every year China will need more oil. Every year there will be less oil in the world. And we haven't even talked about India yet. No, pretty soon the West is going to find out that they really are a minority, and resources are going to be re-allocated accordingly.
The cost of fuel will reduce consumption all by itself. In fact this is already happening. Fuel costs are now a very real factor influencing holiday travel decisions, considering the (according to the Fed: lack of) inflation and lack of an increase in household income. Eventually travel will be restricted to necessity only. Certainly not the society we intended to build, but it's the direction we're headed in. Strangely enough other countries who are used to being poor aren't suffering as much - because they're used to everything being out of reach or too expensive. It's the Americans who will no longer be able support their wasteful lifestyle and standard of living who are going to get a hell of an adjustment. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming "American spring"...