Re:Fiat currencies have several problems.
on
Bank Run in Second Life
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, those with money would leave the country and live well because their cash just became worth a whole lot more. Those without would starve.
If those with money left this country in the dead of night, those without could simply raid the storehouses of food left behind. OR, better yet, actually take over the farms stolen by the white man to begin with.
People certainly do need to eat, but there would be no investment. Most likely what you would see would be alternate fiat currency like we saw during the great depression.
Fine with me. Alternate fiat currency takes control out of the hands of the central bankers and returns it to where it belongs, the local villages.
It would mean that we'd be in the same position as Germany pre-WW2. Either we keep paying or we default on our loans. Defaulting on our loans would cause a world-wide economic disaster, so the most likely course of action for other countries that thought we were going to do so would be to threaten to invade if we tried it.
We're going to default on our loans anyway, eventually, so why not do it in one fell swoop? It's not like anybody believes the lie that wealth is created out of nothing, and that's what we have left in the United States at this point, a service economy, a whole lot of nothin'.
It is sensible precisely because it works and doesn't cause us to ruin billions of lives by sending the entire world into a depression.
And it's completely unsustainable and will eventually collapse, ruining billions of lives and sending the entire world into a depression anyway. Once again, all this does is hasten the inevitable.
if you lose power you're in trouble because now you have all those pending (how many?) atimes that you just lost. and you don't know how many and for what files so if you rely on atime for something then you suddenly no longer can for any of those files (but which ones? - you have no way of knowing)..
If you lose power, then you've lost the rest of the saves in the cache as well- thus there was no additional access to the physical file past the initial read anyway. If anything, this makes atime MORE accurate, as it only refers to the physical file, as opposed to the cached copy as well (which may or may not have written).
The ridiculously high rate of deflation required to reach a 1:240 increase in the value of the dollar (which is I assume what you meant) would ensure that no one ever invested because the best form of investment is to convert your money into bank notes (backed by gold, in this case) and stick it under your mattress. Basically all investment would stop and every company would be liquidated because it would be impossible to beat investing in bank notes. The economy would dry up overnight.
Yes it would. It's painful going backwards. But in three days, the cities would run out of food, and that money would start coming back out of the mattresses.
A modest level of inflation ensures that the best way to keep your wealth around is to invest, whether it be in bonds, stocks, commodities, etc., and that ensures that people are able to do business and keep their jobs. Try having a living wage when there are no jobs.
There'd still be jobs- people still need to eat after all. It'd just happen at a lower level is all. The people who wouldn't be touched would be those who have no wealth to begin with.
Also, good luck with the national debt that's now 240 times larger, and still needs interest paid on it, especially because the return on bonds would have to beat the rate of deflation, so interest rates on our debt would skyrocket.
That is a good thing- it's high time America stopped living on debt. Make credit completely inaccessible would be a good thing- it'd force EVERYBODY to live within their means.
Basically, the idea that a 1:240 increase in the value of the dollar over any reasonable time-frame would be beneficial is absolutely absurd.
Only if you think keeping the current standard of living on debt is sensible. Because that's the other option.
Even though much of the wealth of the very rich is tied up in assets, they still have far more cash than the poor. Poor people would spend a greater percentage of their income on goods & services and therefore would not be able to capitalize on the increasing value of cash.
For the very poor, this is true- but their cash will go further. Of course, they're already spending 108% of their income on goods and services- so it'd be hard to spend a greater percentage.
I disagree with that net migration rate- and the birth rate- in that neither take into account "anchor babies" and illegal immigration. I say that among American Natives, the birth rate is MUCH lower than that- and the difference is illegal immigrants having anchor babies. Likewise, I'd say your migration rate is down by 1/3rd.
I disagree with Krugman for the first time since I've been reading him. I think Massive Deflation would be a great thing for just about everybody *except* the very rich. In fact, given the Free Traitors running our trade policy, a 1:240 decrease in the value of the dollar would be a great boon for people trying to find a living wage in this country. If $1/day was a living wage, we could compete effectively with the third world for jobs.
You're not seriously suggesting that police and firefighters only service those who subscribe?
That is EXACTLY how it used to work in many American communities. In exchange for your subscription, they'd give you a tin badge to nail to the side of your house. If the emergency service came and didn't see the badge, they'd likely turn around and do nothing at all.
That is a recipe for chaos. If I were a victim of violent criminal behaviour, in a fire or needing vital medical assistance I would expect my taxes go somewhere worthwhile and cover my arse. What's the point of taxes if you get nothing back?
The point is that the subscription would completely replace the taxes; there would be no taxes, only the subscription. If you decide not to subscribe, well, that's your own problem.
Now I state this not as a libertarian who believes in the privatization of governmental services- I'm as horrified by the thought as you are (especially since I make my living off of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the roads). But it is the standard theory behind privatization in America, that only the rich deserve the services to begin with.
Here's the funny thing about moral and legal systems- once you break them, for any reason, you might as well go all the way down the slippery slope as far as I'm concerned. And in some cases, you're negligent NOT to. War is a great example of this- the aim should be to stay out to begin with, but if you're going to go in, fight to win. 'Tis a bad business, but 'tis better if done swiftly and successfully.
The Bush Administration is trying to tell us that Radical Islam is the fascist movement of our generation- well fine if they are, but then you'd better ACT like they are. If they are, then they are certainly worth ending our own system of government and using nukes to defeat.
If they really aren't that dangerous and the Bush Administration is lying to us, then pull the troops out and leave the Middle East to Islam, it's their mess and they need to clean it up.
You are aware that they're engaged in a campaign of systematic rape and murder along racial lines right? So the "point" that they have is what, mass rape? race war? genocide?
In the economic case of trying to bring a third world country below the Malthusian limits, genocide. It's a most efficient method of reducing population overall, usually, especially if you hit the CULTURE (note, the genocide in Darfur is along CULTURAL lines, not racial lines as you would insinuate- a black person converting to Islam protects their lives and property) that is causing the population growth.
They aren't. But under the libertarian model, they see police and firefighter emergency services as being best served under a subscription model rather than a public tax model.
The US' Growth Rate is 0.894%, and the US definitely fits the traditional definition of first world.
But that's INCLUDING immigration- illegal immigration of a million a year, legal immigration of 2 million a year, yields nearly 1% of our population. Subtract out that immigration, and people already here are below replacement rate.
Wow! I didn't know this:
128 Chile 1.00
129 Argentina 1.00
130 Hong Kong 1.00
If the original article is correct, and then we extrapolate that out to the information age, these three countries are just AT first world status- just breaking out of the Malthusian Crisis. The 127 countries above them are all expanding their population at whatever rate foreign aid and technology will allow, the ones below are all shrinking in population. I was also amazed that 131 is the United States, at.97- which means even with immigration we're losing people.
Birth control, pollution, and the rich realizing that in a developed nation, children are a burden rather than an asset.
The real issue with African poverty is not technological or sociological, it's political. Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most valuable mineral resources on earth, but because the governments of those areas are weak they cannot use them effectively. The source of this weakness: The west.
Incorrect- the real source of the weakness is a population far above the carrying capacity of the land. Which you can also blame on the west in a way- all of those food shipments keeping famine from reducing the population to below the carrying capacity of the land.
I don't even think the military-industrial complex got the dollars, or at least not the majority. I think they went to contras and other South American freedom fighters.
It'd help if the factories and modern farming actually got there.
The problem is that any time the technology allows for more goods, the population WILL expand to more than cover that increase. Thus leaving your country poor.
Personally, I agree, but that's only because my religion and chosen form of government is incompatible with theirs, and apparently cannot be allowed to co-exist (from their point of view).
Most people in America today are using it to buy toys and get fat. In other words, for no long term investment, but rather just to live day to day at a level far above their means.
Without the change in common values, such laws could be passed but would not have been followed. Laws require morality to underlie them if they are to be any use whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, those with money would leave the country and live well because their cash just became worth a whole lot more. Those without would starve.
If those with money left this country in the dead of night, those without could simply raid the storehouses of food left behind. OR, better yet, actually take over the farms stolen by the white man to begin with.
People certainly do need to eat, but there would be no investment. Most likely what you would see would be alternate fiat currency like we saw during the great depression.
Fine with me. Alternate fiat currency takes control out of the hands of the central bankers and returns it to where it belongs, the local villages.
It would mean that we'd be in the same position as Germany pre-WW2. Either we keep paying or we default on our loans. Defaulting on our loans would cause a world-wide economic disaster, so the most likely course of action for other countries that thought we were going to do so would be to threaten to invade if we tried it.
We're going to default on our loans anyway, eventually, so why not do it in one fell swoop? It's not like anybody believes the lie that wealth is created out of nothing, and that's what we have left in the United States at this point, a service economy, a whole lot of nothin'.
It is sensible precisely because it works and doesn't cause us to ruin billions of lives by sending the entire world into a depression.
And it's completely unsustainable and will eventually collapse, ruining billions of lives and sending the entire world into a depression anyway. Once again, all this does is hasten the inevitable.
if you lose power you're in trouble because now you have all those pending (how many?) atimes that you just lost. and you don't know how many and for what files so if you rely on atime for something then you suddenly no longer can for any of those files (but which ones? - you have no way of knowing)..
If you lose power, then you've lost the rest of the saves in the cache as well- thus there was no additional access to the physical file past the initial read anyway. If anything, this makes atime MORE accurate, as it only refers to the physical file, as opposed to the cached copy as well (which may or may not have written).
And, for every file that is already cached and which we read from the cache ... do a write to the disk!'
Uh, why? Or rather, why not cache the atime update until disk usage is clear, THEN do the write, at least for already cached files?
The ridiculously high rate of deflation required to reach a 1:240 increase in the value of the dollar (which is I assume what you meant) would ensure that no one ever invested because the best form of investment is to convert your money into bank notes (backed by gold, in this case) and stick it under your mattress. Basically all investment would stop and every company would be liquidated because it would be impossible to beat investing in bank notes. The economy would dry up overnight.
Yes it would. It's painful going backwards. But in three days, the cities would run out of food, and that money would start coming back out of the mattresses.
A modest level of inflation ensures that the best way to keep your wealth around is to invest, whether it be in bonds, stocks, commodities, etc., and that ensures that people are able to do business and keep their jobs. Try having a living wage when there are no jobs.
There'd still be jobs- people still need to eat after all. It'd just happen at a lower level is all. The people who wouldn't be touched would be those who have no wealth to begin with.
Also, good luck with the national debt that's now 240 times larger, and still needs interest paid on it, especially because the return on bonds would have to beat the rate of deflation, so interest rates on our debt would skyrocket.
That is a good thing- it's high time America stopped living on debt. Make credit completely inaccessible would be a good thing- it'd force EVERYBODY to live within their means.
Basically, the idea that a 1:240 increase in the value of the dollar over any reasonable time-frame would be beneficial is absolutely absurd.
Only if you think keeping the current standard of living on debt is sensible. Because that's the other option.
Even though much of the wealth of the very rich is tied up in assets, they still have far more cash than the poor. Poor people would spend a greater percentage of their income on goods & services and therefore would not be able to capitalize on the increasing value of cash.
For the very poor, this is true- but their cash will go further. Of course, they're already spending 108% of their income on goods and services- so it'd be hard to spend a greater percentage.
I disagree with that net migration rate- and the birth rate- in that neither take into account "anchor babies" and illegal immigration. I say that among American Natives, the birth rate is MUCH lower than that- and the difference is illegal immigrants having anchor babies. Likewise, I'd say your migration rate is down by 1/3rd.
I disagree with Krugman for the first time since I've been reading him. I think Massive Deflation would be a great thing for just about everybody *except* the very rich. In fact, given the Free Traitors running our trade policy, a 1:240 decrease in the value of the dollar would be a great boon for people trying to find a living wage in this country. If $1/day was a living wage, we could compete effectively with the third world for jobs.
You're not seriously suggesting that police and firefighters only service those who subscribe?
That is EXACTLY how it used to work in many American communities. In exchange for your subscription, they'd give you a tin badge to nail to the side of your house. If the emergency service came and didn't see the badge, they'd likely turn around and do nothing at all.
That is a recipe for chaos. If I were a victim of violent criminal behaviour, in a fire or needing vital medical assistance I would expect my taxes go somewhere worthwhile and cover my arse. What's the point of taxes if you get nothing back?
The point is that the subscription would completely replace the taxes; there would be no taxes, only the subscription. If you decide not to subscribe, well, that's your own problem.
Now I state this not as a libertarian who believes in the privatization of governmental services- I'm as horrified by the thought as you are (especially since I make my living off of reducing the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the roads). But it is the standard theory behind privatization in America, that only the rich deserve the services to begin with.
Here's the funny thing about moral and legal systems- once you break them, for any reason, you might as well go all the way down the slippery slope as far as I'm concerned. And in some cases, you're negligent NOT to. War is a great example of this- the aim should be to stay out to begin with, but if you're going to go in, fight to win. 'Tis a bad business, but 'tis better if done swiftly and successfully.
The Bush Administration is trying to tell us that Radical Islam is the fascist movement of our generation- well fine if they are, but then you'd better ACT like they are. If they are, then they are certainly worth ending our own system of government and using nukes to defeat.
If they really aren't that dangerous and the Bush Administration is lying to us, then pull the troops out and leave the Middle East to Islam, it's their mess and they need to clean it up.
PICK ONE- and stick with it.
You are aware that they're engaged in a campaign of systematic rape and murder along racial lines right? So the "point" that they have is what, mass rape? race war? genocide?
In the economic case of trying to bring a third world country below the Malthusian limits, genocide. It's a most efficient method of reducing population overall, usually, especially if you hit the CULTURE (note, the genocide in Darfur is along CULTURAL lines, not racial lines as you would insinuate- a black person converting to Islam protects their lives and property) that is causing the population growth.
They aren't. But under the libertarian model, they see police and firefighter emergency services as being best served under a subscription model rather than a public tax model.
The trick was, we weren't developing it. All the investment really came from private industry and Moore's law.
The US' Growth Rate is 0.894%, and the US definitely fits the traditional definition of first world.
But that's INCLUDING immigration- illegal immigration of a million a year, legal immigration of 2 million a year, yields nearly 1% of our population. Subtract out that immigration, and people already here are below replacement rate.
Nope- read that wrong. Sorry. This means we have immigration of 3 million more people than we need.
Wow! I didn't know this: 128 Chile 1.00
.97- which means even with immigration we're losing people.
129 Argentina 1.00
130 Hong Kong 1.00
If the original article is correct, and then we extrapolate that out to the information age, these three countries are just AT first world status- just breaking out of the Malthusian Crisis. The 127 countries above them are all expanding their population at whatever rate foreign aid and technology will allow, the ones below are all shrinking in population. I was also amazed that 131 is the United States, at
So why hasn't that happened in the West?
Birth control, pollution, and the rich realizing that in a developed nation, children are a burden rather than an asset.
The real issue with African poverty is not technological or sociological, it's political. Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most valuable mineral resources on earth, but because the governments of those areas are weak they cannot use them effectively. The source of this weakness: The west.
Incorrect- the real source of the weakness is a population far above the carrying capacity of the land. Which you can also blame on the west in a way- all of those food shipments keeping famine from reducing the population to below the carrying capacity of the land.
Come on. Do you honestly believe there is some cabal of corporations that decides who we vote for?
No, I think there's a MARKET of corporations that decides who we vote for with their campaign contributions.
People get into the primaries because they manage to get a significant number of supporters, generally by holding a previous political position.
And those supporters are measured in dollars contributed- usually by large corporations, not by individuals giving $1.
I don't even think the military-industrial complex got the dollars, or at least not the majority. I think they went to contras and other South American freedom fighters.
It'd help if the factories and modern farming actually got there.
The problem is that any time the technology allows for more goods, the population WILL expand to more than cover that increase. Thus leaving your country poor.
Personally, I agree, but that's only because my religion and chosen form of government is incompatible with theirs, and apparently cannot be allowed to co-exist (from their point of view).
Most people in America today are using it to buy toys and get fat. In other words, for no long term investment, but rather just to live day to day at a level far above their means.
If not for us high breeders, AmerIndians would still be here smoking them pipes.
You say that as if you consider that to be a good change. I do not believe it to be so.
No, just back to Malthusian agronomics- because every new advance in creating food will just increase the population of the poor.
Without the change in common values, such laws could be passed but would not have been followed. Laws require morality to underlie them if they are to be any use whatsoever.
If you RTFA- only SURVIVING children count. If you lose 75% of your children before they reach adulthood, then you need to have more....