The chain is, they want to see which insurance you'll give your money to so they put a gun to your head, so that you do in fact give money to an insurance company. You don't have a choice as to whether or not you have health insurance, but you do have a choice as to which insurance company you give it to.
I wasn't familiar with Blackjack, so I looked it up. The thing is, in the current system, if you don't have a job you get $0, unemployment insurance aside. In the new system if you don't have a job, you get money + free time which can be used to better yourself. The only thing I'm seeing as a push, is that you get the same money as you did working at a minimum wage job. I guess I can kind of see a situation where the minimum simply isn't enough and you must still work to make ends meet, but despite my statement that pretty much all money is entered into balance sheets somewhere, the businesses aren't privy to those balance sheets.
I'm more interested in why you'd rather pay off the national debt instead of giving money to people "for no reason". Giving people money gives people power, is that not reason enough?
We, wait, not we, the United States government, is in debt to other nations simply because the United States government has no problem with it and thinks there is a certain amount of prestige in having the dollar be the world's reserve currency. There is the whole exorbitant privilege thing, but there are other ways of getting similar things done. I was going to say that there are two ways of eliminating this easily, but on further examination, it merely eliminates some of the problems brought about by this. One is minting a Trillion Dollar Coin. The other is introducing a reserve currency and clearing union that isn't tied to any one nation's currency. The clearing union would buy dollars and issue Bancor, so on the books the government would owe the clearing union, but the clearing union doesn't care to be paid, but can do things to make the world economy run smoother:
If a nation had too high a bancor surplus the ICU would take a percentage of that surplus and put it into the Clearing Union's Reserve Fund; this would encourage nations with surpluses to buy other nations' exports. Nations that imported more than they exported would have their currency depreciated against the bancor; encouraging other nations to buy their products, and making imports more expensive.
Also, from a certain perspective, there is an infinite amount of free money floating about; it just hasn't manifested itself as tangible objects yet. There are also an infinite amount of "common senses" floating about, and one of them says that it is a big mistake to look at governmental debt the same way as personal debt.
Wolfgang Stutzel showed with his Saldenmechanik (Balances Mechanics) how a comprehensive debt redemption would compulsorily force a corresponding indebtedness of the private sector, due to a negative Keynes-multiplier leading to crisis and deflation.
On the internet no one can tell you're a Millennial, or from any other group, for that matter. I voted this article down as stupid, but it got through anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm not part of the echo chamber that âoeboldlyâ proclaims the need to raise awareness, nor do I assume such an echo chamber contains only Millennials.
Years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending and failure to implement financial reforms left Greece badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck.
So, no that is not how Greece got into trouble. Part of the problem is that the Euro coupled different performing economies together, so they couldn't just devalue Greece's currency so things from them would be cheaper.
Government debt and personal debt aren't really comparable. Governments don't have the nasty tendency to die and their decisions aided by the economists in the banking system have to determine whether or not taking on debt, really injecting more money into the economy, will benefit everyone. Percentage of GDP is one of many factors in determining whether or not taking on more debt will be a good or bad thing.
What keeps prices from increasing is that there is a lot more variation in the goods the money goes towards. The goods in question are not all near substitutes for each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
How does the national debt contribute to people not being happy with their lot in life? What are the 'wider concerns' that are getting neglected?
My first reaction to that is to think employers would start paying people less and/or never give anyone a raise ever again
Your half-right, they would start paying people less, but they wouldn't never give anyone a raise ever again, because these people would be freer to quit if they didn't get a raise, so they'd have more bargaining power, not less to get said raise.
All money has to be accounted for in ledgers somewhere, so free money is a bit of a misnomer. All the things you are paying for are merely a means to manipulate and gauge your opinion on things. Income tax exists so that the government can reward people for acting in a way it approves through the issuance of tax returns. You pay for health insurance because the government wants to find out where you'll give that money to.
Well, in your opinion, what are the real problems we are facing now, and if it doesn't result in large numbers of people being upset with their lot in life, as opposed to being upset because the government doesn't act the way that they want it to in areas not detrimental to their lot in life, for example.
Arguments like yours remind me of the Camel/Train spotter skit Monty Python put on where he says if you've seen one camel, you've seen them all, is asked if he has seen them all, to which he replies he's seen one, then proceeds to describe a train, and is then asked if he is not actually a train spotter.
There is no "free" money, all that money has to be accounted for. Government debt is not off the backs of the taxpayers. In the current economic model, governments of the world go to their central banks and ask to "borrow" money. The central bank makes an educated guess as to what the injection of money will do to the economy. The central bank then approves or denies the loan to the national government. Into various ledgers, assets and liabilities get generated. At a lower level, all banks determine whether or not every loan they make will help or harm the economy. All those obligations to repay can be sold to someone else. Someone else can be foreign governments. And if foreign governments don't want to hold dollars anymore, they'll just create a clearing union to accept dollars and issue a new currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, all money does just magically appear, including money backed by gold. Back when the dollar was backed by gold and set at $35 an ounce, London bankers exchanged gold at higher rates. But all magic is just insufficient understanding of the underlying reality. All money exists as the result of economic engineering. Print too little money and people with solid ideas won't have the money to execute their plans. Print too much and there's too few goods able to be generated to exchange the money for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because that's apparently what you want to do? If you don't want to do it don't do it. And don't talk to me about how you really don't want to do it, but you're obligated to do it, because people only live up to their obligations if they want to, so we're back to because you want to do it again.
with my money
I always find it strange when people think the money the government has is their money, and seemingly theirs alone, when the money they contribute in taxes is miniscule compared to what the government has to spend. And a lot of the money the government has to spend is money they borrowed with the blessing of the Federal Reserve, which has more power over our economy than the actual government does, but it looks like the Federal Reserve is mostly a meritocracy, and until that changes, I couldn't care less about the fact that they aren't democratically elected. Economic theory was hardly what it is now back when the United States broke away from Great Britian.
Apparently a lot of people came away with a different idea of what's going on than I did when I read genetically modified organism, because I thought it meant making an organism that was more susceptible to having ultrasound directly affect neurons because the neurons were slightly different than in other organisms, and therefore could not lead directly to applications to humans.
By "inhibitory" in which case they tend to suppress further firing, I gather you mean that they transmit a signal to a downlevel neuron that makes it more likely to disregard another neuron's signal that makes it more likely to fire. But what if you want to see for a little while what happens when a neuron never fires, but want to make it go back to the way it was before you made it not fire at all. I would call that turning the neuron off.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe in justice, you insensitive clod!
If I remember correctly, the change oil light in some cars don't actually sense the condition of the oil but actually run on a timer.
Somebody needs to do a study on whether your generation came out "well-adjusted". What does that even mean though?
I wasn't familiar with Blackjack, so I looked it up. The thing is, in the current system, if you don't have a job you get $0, unemployment insurance aside. In the new system if you don't have a job, you get money + free time which can be used to better yourself. The only thing I'm seeing as a push, is that you get the same money as you did working at a minimum wage job. I guess I can kind of see a situation where the minimum simply isn't enough and you must still work to make ends meet, but despite my statement that pretty much all money is entered into balance sheets somewhere, the businesses aren't privy to those balance sheets.
I'm more interested in why you'd rather pay off the national debt instead of giving money to people "for no reason". Giving people money gives people power, is that not reason enough?
We, wait, not we, the United States government, is in debt to other nations simply because the United States government has no problem with it and thinks there is a certain amount of prestige in having the dollar be the world's reserve currency. There is the whole exorbitant privilege thing, but there are other ways of getting similar things done. I was going to say that there are two ways of eliminating this easily, but on further examination, it merely eliminates some of the problems brought about by this. One is minting a Trillion Dollar Coin. The other is introducing a reserve currency and clearing union that isn't tied to any one nation's currency.
The clearing union would buy dollars and issue Bancor, so on the books the government would owe the clearing union, but the clearing union doesn't care to be paid, but can do things to make the world economy run smoother:
Also, from a certain perspective, there is an infinite amount of free money floating about; it just hasn't manifested itself as tangible objects yet. There are also an infinite amount of "common senses" floating about, and one of them says that it is a big mistake to look at governmental debt the same way as personal debt.
You probably shouldn't use Cortana to dictate your Slashdot posts.
I tried to tell Cortana "Windows Media Player" and it couldn't get that right.
On the internet no one can tell you're a Millennial, or from any other group, for that matter. I voted this article down as stupid, but it got through anyway. I'm sorry, but I'm not part of the echo chamber that âoeboldlyâ proclaims the need to raise awareness, nor do I assume such an echo chamber contains only Millennials.
They've put a financial gun to your head because they want to find out where you'll give that money to. Do try to keep up.
I admit I'm still confused about what you think the business community will have the power to do.
Government debt and personal debt aren't really comparable. Governments don't have the nasty tendency to die and their decisions aided by the economists in the banking system have to determine whether or not taking on debt, really injecting more money into the economy, will benefit everyone. Percentage of GDP is one of many factors in determining whether or not taking on more debt will be a good or bad thing.
What keeps prices from increasing is that there is a lot more variation in the goods the money goes towards. The goods in question are not all near substitutes for each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your half-right, they would start paying people less, but they wouldn't never give anyone a raise ever again, because these people would be freer to quit if they didn't get a raise, so they'd have more bargaining power, not less to get said raise.
All money has to be accounted for in ledgers somewhere, so free money is a bit of a misnomer. All the things you are paying for are merely a means to manipulate and gauge your opinion on things. Income tax exists so that the government can reward people for acting in a way it approves through the issuance of tax returns. You pay for health insurance because the government wants to find out where you'll give that money to.
Well, in your opinion, what are the real problems we are facing now, and if it doesn't result in large numbers of people being upset with their lot in life, as opposed to being upset because the government doesn't act the way that they want it to in areas not detrimental to their lot in life, for example.
Arguments like yours remind me of the Camel/Train spotter skit Monty Python put on where he says if you've seen one camel, you've seen them all, is asked if he has seen them all, to which he replies he's seen one, then proceeds to describe a train, and is then asked if he is not actually a train spotter.
How much is "plenty"?
There is no "free" money, all that money has to be accounted for. Government debt is not off the backs of the taxpayers. In the current economic model, governments of the world go to their central banks and ask to "borrow" money. The central bank makes an educated guess as to what the injection of money will do to the economy. The central bank then approves or denies the loan to the national government. Into various ledgers, assets and liabilities get generated. At a lower level, all banks determine whether or not every loan they make will help or harm the economy. All those obligations to repay can be sold to someone else. Someone else can be foreign governments. And if foreign governments don't want to hold dollars anymore, they'll just create a clearing union to accept dollars and issue a new currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, all money does just magically appear, including money backed by gold. Back when the dollar was backed by gold and set at $35 an ounce, London bankers exchanged gold at higher rates. But all magic is just insufficient understanding of the underlying reality. All money exists as the result of economic engineering. Print too little money and people with solid ideas won't have the money to execute their plans. Print too much and there's too few goods able to be generated to exchange the money for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Because that's apparently what you want to do? If you don't want to do it don't do it. And don't talk to me about how you really don't want to do it, but you're obligated to do it, because people only live up to their obligations if they want to, so we're back to because you want to do it again.
I always find it strange when people think the money the government has is their money, and seemingly theirs alone, when the money they contribute in taxes is miniscule compared to what the government has to spend. And a lot of the money the government has to spend is money they borrowed with the blessing of the Federal Reserve, which has more power over our economy than the actual government does, but it looks like the Federal Reserve is mostly a meritocracy, and until that changes, I couldn't care less about the fact that they aren't democratically elected. Economic theory was hardly what it is now back when the United States broke away from Great Britian.
Or maybe parsing poorly written summaries isn't the end all and be all of intelligence tests?
Is it bad that I started reading that in Cave Johnson's voice?
In Naruto, they call it a Bingo Book.
And economic theory wasn't very developed.
Yeah, assuming anything is usually bad.
Most of your list sounds bad, except maybe 2.
Or a more complex problem that can be reduced to a series of simple problems that can be solved in any order.
If it can be done that way then perhaps it's bad homework. I've had too much homework that consisted of merely copying the textbook.
Apparently a lot of people came away with a different idea of what's going on than I did when I read genetically modified organism, because I thought it meant making an organism that was more susceptible to having ultrasound directly affect neurons because the neurons were slightly different than in other organisms, and therefore could not lead directly to applications to humans.
By "inhibitory" in which case they tend to suppress further firing, I gather you mean that they transmit a signal to a downlevel neuron that makes it more likely to disregard another neuron's signal that makes it more likely to fire. But what if you want to see for a little while what happens when a neuron never fires, but want to make it go back to the way it was before you made it not fire at all. I would call that turning the neuron off.