No, I think he is making the point that the "risk free rate" often matches the inflation rate , since fed monitors and controls both.That way they cancel out.
Citation please. What is this "risk free rate" and where do I look it up to see what it is?
I'm apparently so fucking stupid I can stump you with a simple question. When you have 5% inflation and 5% interest, will your money be worth more or less? Can you not figure that one out?
Yes, but in reality that rarely happens. Can you find any savings account these days that will yield 5%? You can't. You have to invest that money to get that type of return, and that means putting your money at risk of loss.
So you are asserting that $105 after 5% inflation will not buy what $100 would buy before? Then how much will in buy?
Yes, of course it would. But you still only have $100! Inflation does not put more money in your account. So under 5% inflation, the $100 you have in the bank will buy what $95 would have bought before the inflation. So you have lost 5% of your purchasing power. You may invest your $100 to try to stay ahead of the inflation. But that also means putting your money at risk of loss. So you are forced to put your money at risk just to hold onto the value of your money.
You are the one that agreed with me that 5% interest in 5% inflation does not reduce your buying power...
It does not, you're right. But inflation is encouraged by low interest rates, making money more attractive to borrow, thus increasing the money supply. So you will rarely see 5% interest rates on money and 5% inflation. It'd be more like.5% interest with 5% inflation. That's the whole reason inflation increases the velocity of money. It encourages spending because if one waits to spend, one will get less for their money.
It steals nothing. My $100 in the bank is worth $105 after the fed increases the money supply 5%. My house goes from $200,000 to 210,000, again, matching the inflation. Nothing is lost. The only thing "lost" is from people who keep cash under the mattress.
What? I think you have that backwards. When inflation occurs your money is worth less than before. Your $100 is worth $95 after 5% inflation. That's why, as you say, the mattress stuffers get screwed. The nominal value of your real estate goes up; again, because the value of the currency has gone down. This dynamic benefits the owners of things, because the actual value does not change while the nominal value increases. Those who work for a salary get screwed because salaries do not go up with inflation.
I'm not saying the general idea what the Fed did was bad. Just that it was implemented in a way to make the 1% even richer while taking away from the 99%. I think it would have been better if the money was distributed to the 99%, rather than gifted to the 1%.
I'll go ahead and say it was bad. Like you say, the way they went about things benefited the wealthy way way more than everyone else. The Fed bailed out their constituency, ensuring the stability (but not health) of the banking and credit industries, at the expense of the rest of society.
You're confused - it's the BANKS that 'print' money into existence.
Commerical banks create pseudeo-money.
When you deposit "real" money from the government or central bank in a commercial bank account the bank keeps a certain ammount of it in reseve (either by stashing it in a vault or depositing it at the central bank) and loans out the rest. But you still effectively have the money you deposited so your bank balance is psuedo-money.
The ammount of such psuedo-money in the system is much greater than the ammount of "real money" but the government and central bank (the existance of which is ultimately at the whim of the government) control the ammount of real money and the reserve requirements placed on banks and thus indirectly control the ammount of pseudo-money the commercial banks can create.
They all create the same money, there is no pseudo-money. When you get a loan from a bank, that bank creates the money they lend you on the spot. It does not come out of anyone's account, or even from the bank's money. It is new money, created for you based on your willingness to pay, or the real value of physical collateral you put up. The Federal Reserve does the same thing when they buy Treasury bonds. They create that money on the spot to buy the bonds and increase the money supply. So there is no "real money" there is only debt; the promise to repay. The Fed uses reserve requirements to limit the amount of money created. But it's all the same money; created out of thin air, at interest, on demand. In this way, the banking system skims off of the entire world's money supply. Quite a racket!
The banks are owned by JEWS.
Hence you bow down in terror whenever anybody dares to criticise the Jew...
I was with you up until the antisemitism. Yes, some of the owners are Jewish, but many are not. It's not about being Jewish, it's about being an ultra-wealthy sociopath.
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time.
If that were the case, then she/he/it could interact with our reality as well as Mr. Sphere can interact with the denizens of Flatland: any contact = bloody, bodily shredding of the Flatlander.
Actually, as a non-believer I have to concede that 'god exists outside of [our] space and time' is one of the more reasonable and rational statements you could make. If God created the universe then he must necessarily have existed outside the spacetime he just created. Now, any statements as to how his "spacetime analogue" and our own may interact start treading on much more tenuous ground, but the basic assertion is necessarily valid.
Yes, thank you. I personally do believe there is a greater consciousness at work in the Universe. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong about that. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell or sin, so it's all good either way. As I have said before, I think being an Atheist is perfectly reasonable. After all, there is no proof of God's existence.
It's hard to conceive of an existence without time. Time is so central to our experience. I'm not sure I can really conceive of it myself. But I do think that if God exists, he has a different relationship to time than we do. Take that Hawking!;-)
no no no, god exists between the 5th and 6th dimensions.
(my explanation is about as sensible as yours. I can throw words together, too, and declare it a truth but that does not mean a single thing, really).
'god exists outside of space and time'. what a void sentence that is. maybe it impresses someone, but not any thinking person, that much I can assure you.
Oh, relax. I did not declare anything the truth, I was merely speculating. I like to do that about God because it's such a contentious mystery. People get all bent out of shape about it, know what I mean?
Your tax dollars subsidize the stadiums, the wealthy owners, the games, and their idiotic and useless "trademarks" too.
Didn't we elect someone to stop crony capitalism? Oh, right: he's now the crony capitalist in chief.
I have come to the conclusion that when a President takes office he either gets with the program or the program gets with him. Not entirely, of course. He can have an agenda, but he can't color too far outside the lines.
The jerseys (the good sewn ones) are simply way too expensive. They're upwards of $250-300 and taht's more than I'm spending on a player who might be with the team for 3-4 years.
Wait, an official NFL jersey costs $250-$300?? Fucking really? No wonder they need the government to enforce their monopoly!
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
I suspect God has bigger things to deal with than internet connections. But it doesnt hurt to try....
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time. So he could theoretically have time for everything, because time has no meaning to him.
Your argument seems to be that the NSA's activities have not yet been ruled illegal. Fair enough, but I think it's only a matter of time. I'd also point out that the Government has done everything they can to keep cases out of court, by challenging standing in cases of secret surveillance and such. My suspicion is that they know that if this stuff were aired in court, it would likely be deemed illegal. But that's just my speculation.
taco cowboy, that fucking moron, is completely ignorant of history. what about the house un american activities committee? the alien and sedition acts? the espionage act of 1917?
every fucking generation thinks that they invented crises and history. yes, these events agianst he lie detector crusaders are important. yes, we should always be vigilant to protect our rights. but no, the usa is not "marching towards fasism" in any sense more meaningful than "I am marching towards china" when i walk eastward to the store.
fuck you, taco cowboy, and fuck the historically clueless goth alarmists who marked you up.
I'm sorry, who the fuck are you, again? If you are over 40 and don't see the direction this country has taken over the last 15 years or so, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, we had a House Un-American Activities Committee. Now we have a Department of Homeland Security with nebulous jurisdiction and authority. And we call our country the "Homeland". We never did that before 2001. We have militarized police and "enemy combatant" status. We have the NSA looking at all of our communication.
Like I said, if you are over 40 or so, you should be able to see the change. This is not the same country we grew up in.
it begs the question of why exactly our targets were chosen as such if not due to conspiracy
Not to mention, you've summed up only a mere ten percent or so of all the "inconvenient aspects" of the official version... but good luck reaching those with their heads stubbornly and desperately buried in the sand; their thoughts and beliefs on the subject (all having been well-vetted by the media for comfort-inducing consumption, of course) are profoundly resistant to common sense, the nature of cause and effect, physics/engineering knowledge... not to mention brutally-obvious lessons of history *cough* Reichstag fire *cough.
Well said. And I applaud you for posting under your username. Posts on this topic are often done as AC, since it is not a popular topic for most. The official account of that day is lacking, leaving us to wonder what is really going on. The thing is, coming to that realization is disconcerting, because it calls into question what we know and how we know it. If such a thing could be covered up, what else could be? Most people will not believe such a thing because it does not fit into their world view. Put plainly, they don't want to live in a world in which stuff like that happens. So, they don't.
I worked with a Princeton grad. He said the valedictorian speech was in Greek, but since no one at Princeton knows Greek anymore the student programs had it translated complete with notations as to where to clap and laugh at jokes. For this his dad paid Ivy league tuition. It aptly shows what said Ivy League education actually is, an overpriced sham.
BTW, I am an A&M grad who was his boss and flogged him at chess.
You don't go to an Ivy League school for the education. You go for the contacts, networking and prestige. It's not about what you learn at Princeton, but whom you meet.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think he is making the point that the "risk free rate" often matches the inflation rate , since fed monitors and controls both.That way they cancel out.
Citation please. What is this "risk free rate" and where do I look it up to see what it is?
Prices go up 5% or the value of your money goes down 5%.
So you agree with me, and are just arguing the return on investment of banked money. Got it. Thanks for your agreement and vote of confidence.
Who are you, Stephen Colbert?
I'm apparently so fucking stupid I can stump you with a simple question. When you have 5% inflation and 5% interest, will your money be worth more or less? Can you not figure that one out?
Yes, but in reality that rarely happens. Can you find any savings account these days that will yield 5%? You can't. You have to invest that money to get that type of return, and that means putting your money at risk of loss.
So you are asserting that $105 after 5% inflation will not buy what $100 would buy before? Then how much will in buy?
Yes, of course it would. But you still only have $100! Inflation does not put more money in your account. So under 5% inflation, the $100 you have in the bank will buy what $95 would have bought before the inflation. So you have lost 5% of your purchasing power. You may invest your $100 to try to stay ahead of the inflation. But that also means putting your money at risk of loss. So you are forced to put your money at risk just to hold onto the value of your money.
You are the one that agreed with me that 5% interest in 5% inflation does not reduce your buying power...
It does not, you're right. But inflation is encouraged by low interest rates, making money more attractive to borrow, thus increasing the money supply. So you will rarely see 5% interest rates on money and 5% inflation. It'd be more like .5% interest with 5% inflation. That's the whole reason inflation increases the velocity of money. It encourages spending because if one waits to spend, one will get less for their money.
It steals nothing. My $100 in the bank is worth $105 after the fed increases the money supply 5%. My house goes from $200,000 to 210,000, again, matching the inflation. Nothing is lost. The only thing "lost" is from people who keep cash under the mattress.
What? I think you have that backwards. When inflation occurs your money is worth less than before. Your $100 is worth $95 after 5% inflation. That's why, as you say, the mattress stuffers get screwed. The nominal value of your real estate goes up; again, because the value of the currency has gone down. This dynamic benefits the owners of things, because the actual value does not change while the nominal value increases. Those who work for a salary get screwed because salaries do not go up with inflation.
I'm not saying the general idea what the Fed did was bad. Just that it was implemented in a way to make the 1% even richer while taking away from the 99%. I think it would have been better if the money was distributed to the 99%, rather than gifted to the 1%.
I'll go ahead and say it was bad. Like you say, the way they went about things benefited the wealthy way way more than everyone else. The Fed bailed out their constituency, ensuring the stability (but not health) of the banking and credit industries, at the expense of the rest of society.
You're confused - it's the BANKS that 'print' money into existence.
Commerical banks create pseudeo-money.
When you deposit "real" money from the government or central bank in a commercial bank account the bank keeps a certain ammount of it in reseve (either by stashing it in a vault or depositing it at the central bank) and loans out the rest. But you still effectively have the money you deposited so your bank balance is psuedo-money.
The ammount of such psuedo-money in the system is much greater than the ammount of "real money" but the government and central bank (the existance of which is ultimately at the whim of the government) control the ammount of real money and the reserve requirements placed on banks and thus indirectly control the ammount of pseudo-money the commercial banks can create.
They all create the same money, there is no pseudo-money. When you get a loan from a bank, that bank creates the money they lend you on the spot. It does not come out of anyone's account, or even from the bank's money. It is new money, created for you based on your willingness to pay, or the real value of physical collateral you put up. The Federal Reserve does the same thing when they buy Treasury bonds. They create that money on the spot to buy the bonds and increase the money supply. So there is no "real money" there is only debt; the promise to repay. The Fed uses reserve requirements to limit the amount of money created. But it's all the same money; created out of thin air, at interest, on demand. In this way, the banking system skims off of the entire world's money supply. Quite a racket!
You're confused - it's the BANKS that 'print' money into existence.
Where have you been?
http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/proof-that-banks-create-money/
The government works FOR the banks.
The banks are owned by JEWS. Hence you bow down in terror whenever anybody dares to criticise the Jew...
I was with you up until the antisemitism. Yes, some of the owners are Jewish, but many are not. It's not about being Jewish, it's about being an ultra-wealthy sociopath.
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time.
If that were the case, then she/he/it could interact with our reality as well as Mr. Sphere can interact with the denizens of Flatland: any contact = bloody, bodily shredding of the Flatlander.
Perhaps that's why we never see him! ;-)
Actually, as a non-believer I have to concede that 'god exists outside of [our] space and time' is one of the more reasonable and rational statements you could make. If God created the universe then he must necessarily have existed outside the spacetime he just created. Now, any statements as to how his "spacetime analogue" and our own may interact start treading on much more tenuous ground, but the basic assertion is necessarily valid.
Yes, thank you. I personally do believe there is a greater consciousness at work in the Universe. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong about that. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell or sin, so it's all good either way. As I have said before, I think being an Atheist is perfectly reasonable. After all, there is no proof of God's existence.
It's hard to conceive of an existence without time. Time is so central to our experience. I'm not sure I can really conceive of it myself. But I do think that if God exists, he has a different relationship to time than we do. Take that Hawking! ;-)
no no no, god exists between the 5th and 6th dimensions.
(my explanation is about as sensible as yours. I can throw words together, too, and declare it a truth but that does not mean a single thing, really).
'god exists outside of space and time'. what a void sentence that is. maybe it impresses someone, but not any thinking person, that much I can assure you.
Oh, relax. I did not declare anything the truth, I was merely speculating. I like to do that about God because it's such a contentious mystery. People get all bent out of shape about it, know what I mean?
If not, the why the hell are my tax dollars going to assist a private, for profit, enterprise in their desire to increase their profits?
Actually, the NFL is a non-profit organization. So they don't even pay taxes for this enforcement!
Your tax dollars subsidize the stadiums, the wealthy owners, the games, and their idiotic and useless "trademarks" too.
Didn't we elect someone to stop crony capitalism? Oh, right: he's now the crony capitalist in chief.
I have come to the conclusion that when a President takes office he either gets with the program or the program gets with him. Not entirely, of course. He can have an agenda, but he can't color too far outside the lines.
The jerseys (the good sewn ones) are simply way too expensive. They're upwards of $250-300 and taht's more than I'm spending on a player who might be with the team for 3-4 years.
Wait, an official NFL jersey costs $250-$300?? Fucking really? No wonder they need the government to enforce their monopoly!
The TV rights and all the other shitty subsidies support their salaries you faggot.
I feel the anti-gay slur really enhanced your point.
Corporations can exist, and employ people, without owning the government like they do now.
When was the last time we heard about a 21 million dollar drug bust?
Forget that, when do we hear about billion dollar banking fraud busts?
Thank you! More like this please.
Way to go guys! Now go after Wall Street...
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
I suspect God has bigger things to deal with than internet connections. But it doesnt hurt to try....
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time. So he could theoretically have time for everything, because time has no meaning to him.
Your argument seems to be that the NSA's activities have not yet been ruled illegal. Fair enough, but I think it's only a matter of time. I'd also point out that the Government has done everything they can to keep cases out of court, by challenging standing in cases of secret surveillance and such. My suspicion is that they know that if this stuff were aired in court, it would likely be deemed illegal. But that's just my speculation.
how is this paranoid bullshit "insightful?"
"marching towards fascism?"
really?
this get marked as +5?
taco cowboy, that fucking moron, is completely ignorant of history. what about the house un american activities committee? the alien and sedition acts? the espionage act of 1917?
every fucking generation thinks that they invented crises and history. yes, these events agianst he lie detector crusaders are important. yes, we should always be vigilant to protect our rights. but no, the usa is not "marching towards fasism" in any sense more meaningful than "I am marching towards china" when i walk eastward to the store.
fuck you, taco cowboy, and fuck the historically clueless goth alarmists who marked you up.
I'm sorry, who the fuck are you, again? If you are over 40 and don't see the direction this country has taken over the last 15 years or so, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, we had a House Un-American Activities Committee. Now we have a Department of Homeland Security with nebulous jurisdiction and authority. And we call our country the "Homeland". We never did that before 2001. We have militarized police and "enemy combatant" status. We have the NSA looking at all of our communication.
Like I said, if you are over 40 or so, you should be able to see the change. This is not the same country we grew up in.
it begs the question of why exactly our targets were chosen as such if not due to conspiracy
Not to mention, you've summed up only a mere ten percent or so of all the "inconvenient aspects" of the official version... but good luck reaching those with their heads stubbornly and desperately buried in the sand; their thoughts and beliefs on the subject (all having been well-vetted by the media for comfort-inducing consumption, of course) are profoundly resistant to common sense, the nature of cause and effect, physics/engineering knowledge... not to mention brutally-obvious lessons of history *cough* Reichstag fire *cough.
Well said. And I applaud you for posting under your username. Posts on this topic are often done as AC, since it is not a popular topic for most. The official account of that day is lacking, leaving us to wonder what is really going on. The thing is, coming to that realization is disconcerting, because it calls into question what we know and how we know it. If such a thing could be covered up, what else could be? Most people will not believe such a thing because it does not fit into their world view. Put plainly, they don't want to live in a world in which stuff like that happens. So, they don't.
No, Snowden is at best a leaker, he could be worse.
Which "malfeasance" are you referring to? I haven't heard of them doing anything illegal (even if some might tend to make you uncomfortable).
Really? http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...
Keep up, eh?
I worked with a Princeton grad. He said the valedictorian speech was in Greek, but since no one at Princeton knows Greek anymore the student programs had it translated complete with notations as to where to clap and laugh at jokes. For this his dad paid Ivy league tuition. It aptly shows what said Ivy League education actually is, an overpriced sham.
BTW, I am an A&M grad who was his boss and flogged him at chess.
You don't go to an Ivy League school for the education. You go for the contacts, networking and prestige. It's not about what you learn at Princeton, but whom you meet.