While I appreciate the mention of double sided accounting you seem to be missing the point. The fed isn't loaning out something it already has. When a bank takes a loan from the fed that loan is NEWLY 'minted' digital money it doesn't exist prior to the loan. If a bank borrows $1000 the total amount of USD's in the world just went up by $1000. After 'creating' a thousand dollars out of thin air the fed disperses it and creates a corresponding entry on the books. That doesn't change the fact that the fed just created $1000 worth of inflation. This $1000 is NOT added to the national debt. It was borrowed from everyone who holds Federal Reserve Debt notes like those created because they were just de-valued.
They also didn't create anything to cover the interest. Someone, somewhere has to take out another loan at some point to make up for the fact that there isn't enough money in existence to pay the fed back the money owed plus the interest. But you conceded this point in your post.
"So what about that interest paid back to the Fed? Is that a problem? Well it is true that the interest paid back to the Fed *does* take dollars out of the economy, but that's the easiest problem in the world for a central bank to fix. It simply lends them right out again. But the numbers keep getting bigger. Isn't that heading for disaster? No, because the numbers keep getting bigger only if the amount of money in circulation grows, and that should only be done when the economy grows."
Money is added every time a bank borrow money from the Fed. That doesn't happen because the economy grows it happens because that interest amounts to pressure to get a return. Returns come from charging higher prices from the same goods just as easily as creating new goods that add value to the economy. That is why the Fed tries to control the rate at which banks borrow its money with interest rates.
As for giving the money away I see nothing wrong with giving it away and when the time comes to take it back then simply do so as a 'tax' on transactions. Money is not value, money is debt. The goods and services we buy with it are value. When you "take" the money away you are increasing the value that can be traded for with the money in the wallet. When its time to give away new money do it on a first come first basis or SS# lottery. The amount is set by the persons liquid assets, give them a 'correction' up to a proportionate share of the total liquid currency. The last time we had anything resembling real numbers on that was march 06, $10.5 trillion and we hit 300 million people in 2006. So that year means everyone who queued up fast enough got whatever brought their bank account up to $34,333. Certainly not going to make anyone rich or even enough to live on. But it is enough to invest in an education or start a small business. And if its just blown, from the standpoint of the economy nothing is lost. It finds it way into the hands of those creating goods and services soon enough. If you have more cash than that you don't qualify, because giving you liquid cash isn't likely to enable you to do something you can't do now only increase your balance sheet.
"It makes no sense to talk about "under" or "over-valuing" goods in terms of *currency*; it only makes sense to value *one* kind of good against *another*. In other words it makes no difference if your magic sword costs ten rupees or a hundred so long as everything else in the game is proportionately scaled. The only reason you want stable prices so that *future* goods are not undervalued (inflation) or overvalued (deflation) relative to things you could buy today."
But it isn't proportionately scaled. The Federal Reserve keeps secret how much money it creates and who it gives it to. It does this because every other currency in the world is valued relative to ours and if we report false low rates of inflation then we over-value our currency and have more spending power throughout the world. Because of this misreporting or lack of reporting when the federal reserve gives out o
"And that is why the money does not make it into the system. It's literally free money for doing nothing."
I'm not denying that. But then again pretty much everything banks do to make money is free money. Pretty much anywhere else banks put money yields more interest than having it sit in the Fed which is why its called "required balances and EXCESS reserves". Hell banks can buy treasury bills and get a higher interest rate than they do from the fed and rather than create inflation they can create government debt!
For the most part the money banks borrow from the Fed does make it into the system simply because banks make more money putting it there. Putting the money into the system doesn't fix the problem.
This is actually what I thought you were referring to:
That's a misrepresentation of the process. You are describing the bailout loans. The debt created by the fed is in the day to day banking operation.
The fed prints money by depositing electronically into banks. The banks PAY the fed interest on the money. The banks don't deposit the money, this money is what banks use to loan you money. For instance in the form of a mortgage.
So bank shows fed a fraction of loan, fed loans bank dollar. Bank owes fed $1.01 (simplifying here). Bank loans $1 dollar to you and you owe bank say $1.05. The problem is that we've created $1 of money and $1.05 of debt. The 5 cents doesn't exist and therefore is impossible to pay back. So where do you get it? Well at some point it comes from the only place it can. Someone else borrowing another dollar from a bank who borrows from the Fed... So now we have $2 created and $2.10 worth of debt. If we pay the original $1.05 debt, there is only $0.95 money left to pay the new $1.05 debt.
Now scale this up to trillions of dollars. Basically the system works by continually creating an ever growing national debt (and no, I'm not talking about the governments debt). Now we justify this saying that those loans have to backed by goods, even if only a fraction of the loan so we must produce more and more goods to keep the cycle flowing. But the reality is that we can just assign the same goods a continually higher value and continue to create debt without limit. Not only can we, we will do so because we need higher prices to pay off our debts! Inflation creation at its best... and yet our interest rates our higher than our inflation rate... what that means is that our inflation rate is false. What does reporting a lower than reality inflation rate do? Well if you are the currency that the global currency exchange uses to benchmark other currencies against, it means you are stealing from the value of all the other currencies because they are valuing against your false inflation thereby giving you more goods for your currency than the currency is worth when you buy goods in their nation or pay debts.
The result of doing this for 80 years or so? Massive over consumption and over valuation of goods causing rippling global economic crisis... like the one we see now.
The burden of proof required for a warrant is (in theory) lower than the burden of proof required to convict you. Otherwise they wouldn't bother with warrants.
I used to think that the difference between the bright ones and the not so bright was really just education. That intelligence was really a measure of curiosity and drive to learn. Attempting to teach people material has cured me of this fantasy.
For every person who just needs education or needs the material presented to them in another way that clicks for them there are thousands who simply don't and won't get it no matter how it is presented.
Not that I'm saying the fp is in one group or the other.
The Taiwan company is another company. One that apparently doesn't have the trademark rights, so if you bankrupted them that doesn't bankrupt the Chinese company and they Taiwanese edition can't fire sale a trademark they don't own.
"bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate"
An affiliated company is a separate company that is related or connected not the same company.You can sign up as an affiliate of adult friend finder and show their banner ads on your website to make click-through revenue. That doesn't give you the right to sell their trademark.
In similar fashion, Sony USA likely has no right to sell the rights to the Sony trademark in Japan. Despite sharing a name these companies have different officers.
One could take your argument the other way though. A two year old doesn't even have significant brain function yet, they haven't done anything for society, they haven't learned any skills, so they worth much. The 80 year old has 80 years of experience and learning and probably has children, grandchildren, a spouse, assets, and in many cases a fully functioning brain to recognize them all so they've earned their ten years.
Personally I'd value an 18-30 yr female at a much higher rate than either. 18+ yr old males who are not me or tasked with serving me in some way we can kill off.
The only insurance agents I have are the ones that are forced on me. Insurance companies make money because the odds are against receiving more money than you pay them. It doesn't matter what kind of insurance it is or how big the payouts.
People spend money on things, they want some tangible good or service for their dollars with obvious value. The obvious exception is the wealthy and financial institutions who spend the bulk on their money on investments, but they are on the side of insurance company, they are the casino not the gambler despite all their efforts to cloud the issue.
Pretty much all of those things are only possible on the other side of confidence and/or power. The ones that aren't, are on the list of things women THINK they want in a man. Not the list of things they actually fuck.
I agree with both of you. There are more women who are ripe at 25 than say 16 but if you find a 16yr old with ripe shapely body with the curves of a 25yr old it has the potential to be on a level of perfection in terms of perfect lean form and perfect skin that otherwise only exists in the world of air-brushing.
Seriously? Are there guys who actually want kids? I don't mean guys who already have them and say nonsense about them being wonderful. And I don't mean guys who say they want kids because pretty much all women do and a guy who wants kids or is open to it is on the requirements list.
I mean actual single men who get laid on a regular basis and don't have daddy mode biochemical alterations to their psyche? I mean I know there must be a statistical anomaly like 1 in 10k or something but it can't be a significant number like 5 in 10.
I can see wanting to pass on your genetics but if I knew the girl, i might know she was knocked up later. Then I'd have a moral obligation to RAISE a kid and I have no interest in that. From a passing genetics perspective it works just as well to spread the seed and never know the result.
In Europe I see a lot of the opposite. I'm no chubby chaser, I don't like cellulite, and I don't like women to be overweight but european women seem to be a predominately underweight as American women are overweight. A woman with no hips, no ass, and no tits and who is gangly is NOT especially attractive. It isn't as unattractive as drastically overweight but it certainly isn't a turn on.
Basically anyone who would qualify to be a model in a WOMEN's magazine or walk down a runway is probably drastically underweight. You don't generally find MEN using these stick figures in their pin-ups. I've heard lots of excuses for this ranging from women want to idolize body shapes they can starve and sweat their way into rather than shapes they simply lack the genetics to ever have regardless of effort to gay men running the fashion industry and not liking to emphasize breasts and the bodies to go with them.
"but it's the one or two nice guys that they marry"
Sure but marriage and kids is what the girl wants. For the guy its far more beneficial to be the bad boy that girl actually has sex with, not her husband.
"The same old "Nice guys finish last" cop out. If you're older than 30 and still believing that crap, I feel sorry for you."
Nice guys definitely finish last... at least when it comes to fucking women under 30 regardless of the guys age. Fortunately most of them just whine about it.
"It's interesting how you're saying this is not good at a large-sum, high-scale level, but in general Slashdotters think that doing it on a smaller scale, with donations to musicians, is a good one."
Why is it interesting? Does he represent slashdot? I actually think is a great model. They were paid $20,000 which equates to 90,000+ sales with a traditional publisher. The publisher won't give it to you in advance. They won't even give it to you when its earned, they will hold it back in case of returns for a year or three.
Why is it good for a corporation to charge as much as the market will bear for a book but not good for the market to pay as little as possible for one?
$20k is also actually not a low fee for a book. You need to sell a good 100k copies to see in that ballpark with a traditional publisher.
Slashdot Mirror
While I appreciate the mention of double sided accounting you seem to be missing the point. The fed isn't loaning out something it already has. When a bank takes a loan from the fed that loan is NEWLY 'minted' digital money it doesn't exist prior to the loan. If a bank borrows $1000 the total amount of USD's in the world just went up by $1000. After 'creating' a thousand dollars out of thin air the fed disperses it and creates a corresponding entry on the books. That doesn't change the fact that the fed just created $1000 worth of inflation. This $1000 is NOT added to the national debt. It was borrowed from everyone who holds Federal Reserve Debt notes like those created because they were just de-valued.
They also didn't create anything to cover the interest. Someone, somewhere has to take out another loan at some point to make up for the fact that there isn't enough money in existence to pay the fed back the money owed plus the interest. But you conceded this point in your post.
"So what about that interest paid back to the Fed? Is that a problem? Well it is true that the interest paid back to the Fed *does* take dollars out of the economy, but that's the easiest problem in the world for a central bank to fix. It simply lends them right out again. But the numbers keep getting bigger. Isn't that heading for disaster? No, because the numbers keep getting bigger only if the amount of money in circulation grows, and that should only be done when the economy grows."
Money is added every time a bank borrow money from the Fed. That doesn't happen because the economy grows it happens because that interest amounts to pressure to get a return. Returns come from charging higher prices from the same goods just as easily as creating new goods that add value to the economy. That is why the Fed tries to control the rate at which banks borrow its money with interest rates.
As for giving the money away I see nothing wrong with giving it away and when the time comes to take it back then simply do so as a 'tax' on transactions. Money is not value, money is debt. The goods and services we buy with it are value. When you "take" the money away you are increasing the value that can be traded for with the money in the wallet. When its time to give away new money do it on a first come first basis or SS# lottery. The amount is set by the persons liquid assets, give them a 'correction' up to a proportionate share of the total liquid currency. The last time we had anything resembling real numbers on that was march 06, $10.5 trillion and we hit 300 million people in 2006. So that year means everyone who queued up fast enough got whatever brought their bank account up to $34,333. Certainly not going to make anyone rich or even enough to live on. But it is enough to invest in an education or start a small business. And if its just blown, from the standpoint of the economy nothing is lost. It finds it way into the hands of those creating goods and services soon enough. If you have more cash than that you don't qualify, because giving you liquid cash isn't likely to enable you to do something you can't do now only increase your balance sheet.
"It makes no sense to talk about "under" or "over-valuing" goods in terms of *currency*; it only makes sense to value *one* kind of good against *another*. In other words it makes no difference if your magic sword costs ten rupees or a hundred so long as everything else in the game is proportionately scaled. The only reason you want stable prices so that *future* goods are not undervalued (inflation) or overvalued (deflation) relative to things you could buy today."
But it isn't proportionately scaled. The Federal Reserve keeps secret how much money it creates and who it gives it to. It does this because every other currency in the world is valued relative to ours and if we report false low rates of inflation then we over-value our currency and have more spending power throughout the world. Because of this misreporting or lack of reporting when the federal reserve gives out o
"Second you have some things really confused."
I'll disregard this as you didn't name any.
"And that is why the money does not make it into the system. It's literally free money for doing nothing."
I'm not denying that. But then again pretty much everything banks do to make money is free money. Pretty much anywhere else banks put money yields more interest than having it sit in the Fed which is why its called "required balances and EXCESS reserves". Hell banks can buy treasury bills and get a higher interest rate than they do from the fed and rather than create inflation they can create government debt!
For the most part the money banks borrow from the Fed does make it into the system simply because banks make more money putting it there. Putting the money into the system doesn't fix the problem.
This is actually what I thought you were referring to:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
That's a misrepresentation of the process. You are describing the bailout loans. The debt created by the fed is in the day to day banking operation.
The fed prints money by depositing electronically into banks. The banks PAY the fed interest on the money. The banks don't deposit the money, this money is what banks use to loan you money. For instance in the form of a mortgage.
So bank shows fed a fraction of loan, fed loans bank dollar. Bank owes fed $1.01 (simplifying here). Bank loans $1 dollar to you and you owe bank say $1.05. The problem is that we've created $1 of money and $1.05 of debt. The 5 cents doesn't exist and therefore is impossible to pay back. So where do you get it? Well at some point it comes from the only place it can. Someone else borrowing another dollar from a bank who borrows from the Fed... So now we have $2 created and $2.10 worth of debt. If we pay the original $1.05 debt, there is only $0.95 money left to pay the new $1.05 debt.
Now scale this up to trillions of dollars. Basically the system works by continually creating an ever growing national debt (and no, I'm not talking about the governments debt). Now we justify this saying that those loans have to backed by goods, even if only a fraction of the loan so we must produce more and more goods to keep the cycle flowing. But the reality is that we can just assign the same goods a continually higher value and continue to create debt without limit. Not only can we, we will do so because we need higher prices to pay off our debts! Inflation creation at its best... and yet our interest rates our higher than our inflation rate... what that means is that our inflation rate is false. What does reporting a lower than reality inflation rate do? Well if you are the currency that the global currency exchange uses to benchmark other currencies against, it means you are stealing from the value of all the other currencies because they are valuing against your false inflation thereby giving you more goods for your currency than the currency is worth when you buy goods in their nation or pay debts.
The result of doing this for 80 years or so? Massive over consumption and over valuation of goods causing rippling global economic crisis... like the one we see now.
The burden of proof required for a warrant is (in theory) lower than the burden of proof required to convict you. Otherwise they wouldn't bother with warrants.
I used to think that the difference between the bright ones and the not so bright was really just education. That intelligence was really a measure of curiosity and drive to learn. Attempting to teach people material has cured me of this fantasy.
For every person who just needs education or needs the material presented to them in another way that clicks for them there are thousands who simply don't and won't get it no matter how it is presented.
Not that I'm saying the fp is in one group or the other.
What makes you think the device wouldn't have iOS?
The Taiwan company is another company. One that apparently doesn't have the trademark rights, so if you bankrupted them that doesn't bankrupt the Chinese company and they Taiwanese edition can't fire sale a trademark they don't own.
So if I give the guy at the Apple store $10 for the global rights to the Apple trademark I'm good right? Or only if his name is Bob?
"invented after they found out the trademark rights had been sold to Apple"
Which is it were they fully involved and fully aware or did they find out the rights were sold after the fact? You can't have it both ways.
"bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate"
An affiliated company is a separate company that is related or connected not the same company.You can sign up as an affiliate of adult friend finder and show their banner ads on your website to make click-through revenue. That doesn't give you the right to sell their trademark.
In similar fashion, Sony USA likely has no right to sell the rights to the Sony trademark in Japan. Despite sharing a name these companies have different officers.
One could take your argument the other way though. A two year old doesn't even have significant brain function yet, they haven't done anything for society, they haven't learned any skills, so they worth much. The 80 year old has 80 years of experience and learning and probably has children, grandchildren, a spouse, assets, and in many cases a fully functioning brain to recognize them all so they've earned their ten years.
Personally I'd value an 18-30 yr female at a much higher rate than either. 18+ yr old males who are not me or tasked with serving me in some way we can kill off.
Contrary to popular southern belief America hasn't been divided into North and South since the end of the civil war.
The only insurance agents I have are the ones that are forced on me. Insurance companies make money because the odds are against receiving more money than you pay them. It doesn't matter what kind of insurance it is or how big the payouts.
People spend money on things, they want some tangible good or service for their dollars with obvious value. The obvious exception is the wealthy and financial institutions who spend the bulk on their money on investments, but they are on the side of insurance company, they are the casino not the gambler despite all their efforts to cloud the issue.
That doesn't make psychiatry actual medicine.
This is pretty normal these days. If you want high pay you generally have to hop from contract to contract or take a temp-to-hire.
Shrinks aren't really practicing medicine.
Normal (male) people aren't looking for a life partner.
Pretty much all of those things are only possible on the other side of confidence and/or power. The ones that aren't, are on the list of things women THINK they want in a man. Not the list of things they actually fuck.
I agree with both of you. There are more women who are ripe at 25 than say 16 but if you find a 16yr old with ripe shapely body with the curves of a 25yr old it has the potential to be on a level of perfection in terms of perfect lean form and perfect skin that otherwise only exists in the world of air-brushing.
Seriously? Are there guys who actually want kids? I don't mean guys who already have them and say nonsense about them being wonderful. And I don't mean guys who say they want kids because pretty much all women do and a guy who wants kids or is open to it is on the requirements list.
I mean actual single men who get laid on a regular basis and don't have daddy mode biochemical alterations to their psyche? I mean I know there must be a statistical anomaly like 1 in 10k or something but it can't be a significant number like 5 in 10.
I can see wanting to pass on your genetics but if I knew the girl, i might know she was knocked up later. Then I'd have a moral obligation to RAISE a kid and I have no interest in that. From a passing genetics perspective it works just as well to spread the seed and never know the result.
In Europe I see a lot of the opposite. I'm no chubby chaser, I don't like cellulite, and I don't like women to be overweight but european women seem to be a predominately underweight as American women are overweight. A woman with no hips, no ass, and no tits and who is gangly is NOT especially attractive. It isn't as unattractive as drastically overweight but it certainly isn't a turn on.
Basically anyone who would qualify to be a model in a WOMEN's magazine or walk down a runway is probably drastically underweight. You don't generally find MEN using these stick figures in their pin-ups. I've heard lots of excuses for this ranging from women want to idolize body shapes they can starve and sweat their way into rather than shapes they simply lack the genetics to ever have regardless of effort to gay men running the fashion industry and not liking to emphasize breasts and the bodies to go with them.
"but it's the one or two nice guys that they marry"
Sure but marriage and kids is what the girl wants. For the guy its far more beneficial to be the bad boy that girl actually has sex with, not her husband.
"The same old "Nice guys finish last" cop out. If you're older than 30 and still believing that crap, I feel sorry for you."
Nice guys definitely finish last... at least when it comes to fucking women under 30 regardless of the guys age. Fortunately most of them just whine about it.
"It's interesting how you're saying this is not good at a large-sum, high-scale level, but in general Slashdotters think that doing it on a smaller scale, with donations to musicians, is a good one."
Why is it interesting? Does he represent slashdot? I actually think is a great model. They were paid $20,000 which equates to 90,000+ sales with a traditional publisher. The publisher won't give it to you in advance. They won't even give it to you when its earned, they will hold it back in case of returns for a year or three.
Why is it good for a corporation to charge as much as the market will bear for a book but not good for the market to pay as little as possible for one?
$20k is also actually not a low fee for a book. You need to sell a good 100k copies to see in that ballpark with a traditional publisher.