I believe this is not properly taking the entire document as an organic one, and ignoring an extremely salient fact regarding the Federal Reserve Yes, it gives the Federal government the power to coin money. However, why would the Constitution in Article 1, Section 10, prohibit the States from making anything but gold and silver legal tender, if Article I, Section 8 allows the Federal government to not only coin currency, but print currency? The Federal government is not empowered to print currency, only coin it, and it would be contradictory to ban fiat currency among the States, but allow it within the Federal government. The Federal government, one must recall, was quite minute at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution, 1789, and it would be rather silly to invent "special" money for internal transactions within the Federal government only. However, your entire thesis falls apart into dust when one points out that the Federal Reserve is not an entity of the Federal government, or any other government. It is a privately owned institution. Article 1, Section 8 cannot apply.
I don't think so. If I'm a State, and I accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment of taxes, this de facto renders Federal Reserve Notes to be legal tender. The Federal Government can coerce the several States to accept the debt-backed fiat currency of the Federal Reserve as legal tender, but I'm not sure this was ever necessary. If the States had decided to operate on Constitutional principles, then yes, that would be a point of contention. Most people have no clue how fiat currency and fractional reserve banking function, and I'm certain you could include many politicians.
First of all, finance isn't a close partner to economics
That's a blatant falsehood. Finance tends to deal with individual markets and microeconomics, whereas economics tends to deal with macroeconomics. Try being a finance major, there's a reason why you have to take a number of courses in economics. If you had a Venn diagram, you'd see a huge amount of overlap. They both deal with the economy, only with a slightly different attitude, and a nudge in scope.
"Fiat currencies allow non-market entities to regulate market economies. Without an "artifical" currency (not that gold is any less artificial, it's just a finite shared delusion) there is no (or very little) room for long-term actors to intervene in short-term crises"
You mean it allows governments to control the money supply, which has led to depressions, recessions, the boom and bust business cycles, and the inflation tax. Of course, depressions and recessions existed prior to the founding of the Fed, but they were far less serious and far more short term. Do you really think central planning works? If not, why are you making a special exception in this case?
With a gold standard, one rich person can control an improbably large percentage of the (finite) money supply. Or a million individuals can simply hoarde their money, reducing the supply in circulation, and the government has no easy way of resolving it, short of revaluing the currency which makes a gold standard into a slower fiat currency.
Gold cannot be a fiat currency, unless you have gained the ability to print gold. I'm sorry, but you don't even know what fiat currency is, and yet you're propounding upon it as if you understand its complexities, to say nothing of your self-awarded mastery of monetary policy.
I'm truly astounded this thoroughly discredited canard is still being circulated. You could read Professor Rothbard's "What Has the Government Done to Our Money?," but as the audience appears to be little trained or educated in basic economics, here is the relevant except, "II: Money in a Free Society, "The Problem of 'Hoarding' (http://www.mises.org/money.asp/):
The critic of monetary freedom is not so easily silenced, however. There is, in
particular, the ancient bugbear of "hoarding." The image is conjured up of the selfish
old miser who, perhaps irrationally, perhaps from evil motives, hoards up gold
unused in his cellar or treasure trove--thereby stopping the flow of circulation and
trade, causing depressions and other problems. Is hoarding really a menace?
In the first place, what has simply happened is an increased demand for
money on the part of the miser. As a result, prices of goods fall, and the purchasing
power of the gold-ounce rises. There has been no loss to society, which simply
carries on with a lower active supply of more "powerful" gold ounces.
Even in the worst possible view of the matter, then, nothing has gone wrong,
and monetary freedom creates no difficulties. But there is more to the problem than
that. For it is by no means irrational for people to desire more or less money in their
cash balances.
Let us, at this point, study cash balances further. Why do people keep any
cash balances at all? Suppose that all of us were able to foretell the future with
absolute certainty. In that case, no one would have to keep cash balances on hand.
[35] Everyone would know exactly how much he will spend, and how much income
he will receive, at all future dates. He need not keep any money at hand, but will
lend out his gold so as to receive his payments in the needed amounts on the very
days he makes his expenditures. But, of course, we necessarily live in a world of
uncertainty. People do not precisely know what will happen to them, or what their
future incomes or costs will be. The more uncertain and fearful they are, the more
cash balances they will want to hold; the more secure, the less cash they will wish to
keep on hand. Another r
No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
That pretty strongly says to me that they can't accept anything as legal tender other than gold or silver, as this would be tantamount to making it legal tender, which is prohibited. The Federal Government can not legally coerce the States to accept fiat currency as legal tender.
Actually, a great many economists are well aware of the fundamental contradictions of fiat currency, and it's obvious you yourself aren't an economist, or you wouldn't be spreading FUD on it. I'm in finance, a close partner to economics, and I can tell you that you're absolutely 100% mistaken in not taking these arguments seriously. Common sense indicates if everyone has 100 dollars, and then everyone is given an extra 100 dollars, your purchasing power will be exactly the same as it was before. Now guess what happens if you don't get that extra 100 dollars, but one or two people get an extra 10,000 dollars? What do you think happens then?
Look at the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. Gold and silver are the only legal tender, which means that legally, they are the only acceptable forms of payment of taxes.
I think you are missing the blatantly self-evident truth that money is a commodity, and how in the world would it "artificially" constrain the value of gold? The value of an ounce of gold is always the value of an ounce of gold. What matters is the purchasing power of an ounce of gold, not that 1 ounce of gold = 1 ounce of gold.
If money is backed by gold then you can't logically trade gold separately from money. This means that gold is artificially valued, and the prices of things that use gold would increase for no sound economic reason.
That's because gold is money. If I use gold for something other than currency, I am simply valuing it as more productive in another capacity. Nothing is devalued, only changed in form.
"Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh but that will likely rise if regulation eventually factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces."
Translation: We're going to make what you have now more expensive, so that solar power is a comparative bargain, but you'll still be paying a huge increase on your electrical bill so we can feel good about ourselves.
Is anyone else frightened that the government should have a "tech agenda," meaning further control and regulation of the tech industry, in the first place? Should be really be applauding political robber barons for stealing our tax dollars and enriching themselves from various government schemes? Getting in bed with the government is like getting into bed with a pitcher plant.
Beyond the uber-poster being completely clueless about Chernobyl and the rather minor and harmless incident at Three Mile Island (unless you count bad PR), a mineral that can somehow absorb radiation sounds hard to believe. How much radiation is the mineral alleged to absorb per unit of mass? What are you supposed to do with a now very high radioactively concentrated mineral? This sounds like more nationalistic chest pounding out of an increasingly hostile bear, from one of the sillier Russian tabloids.
I think you really need to get to know the guy and his positions before you start mislabeling him. He's not a populist at all. Try Edwards for that. He's not "neo-liberal," he's a proponent of hard currency, free markets and free trade. He's not "ultra-right-wing reactionary," whatever that means, but a staunch supporter of Constitutionally limited government. Backing the US Constitution is not "reactionary" or "populist." It's a show of integrity, by supporting the document our government is ostensibly governed and controlled by, the US Constitution. He's winning straw polls left and right, gathering support among Republicans and Democrats, who are all attracted by his message of freedom and liberty. If America isn't about freedom and liberty, I don't know what is.
Ron Paul isn't an ultra-conservative. He's a Constitutionalist. Huge difference. Also, last I checked, he wasn't complaining about liberalism much if at all, but mostly about the neo-cons, when it comes to political typologies.
It is very inappropriate to speculate about the Pope's second encyclical until after we've had a chance to read it. Also, since when does Slashdot delve into Catholicism's policies?
That algorithm is a model that does not match real world data. It might be useful to measure who has protection from the bureaucracy, but it won't and can't decipher how true something is simply by how many times and at what frequency people scribble over it. This algorithm is psuedo-scientific, by assuming a premise without investigating the veracity of said premise, and then running away with it as if it were a proven one.
That is a point, but irregardless of the effectiveness of the tax (which is not only not effective, but negatively effective), there isn't broadband in the middle of nowhere now, there probably won't be for the rest of this decade, and people should be responsible enough to work with what is, not what they want to be.
I'm embarrassed for New Hampshire. Stop whining. If you live in the middle of nowhere, don't expect to have all the amenities of a large town or city. You wouldn't expect to find an Asian market or a tapas bar there, why would you expect to find broadband? All are "public" amenities, but they aren't omnipresent, and one can't expect them to be. Either wait until broadband gets out to the boonies, or move. In the meantime, stop complaining about where you have chosen to live.
So what is science? If it's a Bachelors of Science, do you qualify, regardless of major? With college prices already skyrocketing due to artificial demand created by government subsidies, what will the government do when college prices increase at an even faster pace than they do now, and everyone starts demanding "free" tuition? The "free" tuition for the sciences will just keep becoming a larger and larger expense in the meantime. Your tax dollars at work.
That's not net neutrality. That's a private business with private property deciding how to allocate its bandwidth, just like anyone else. It's not the government taking private property by eminent domain, and forcing the private businesses to allocate bandwidth based on an "equal" basis, which is what net neutrality would do.
FUD Cloud: Target acquired and engaged
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 1
1) This is a Fox broadcast station affiliate, not Fox News Channel. The Fox broadcast network and Fox News Channel are separate sub-entities within the same corporate entity.
2) Do Fark admins not use basic anti-virus software?
3) The article is highly speculative, being based purely on circumstantial evidence regarding a possible motive, and is forced to use an ad hominem attack to support its conspiracy theory that Evil Overlord v2(tm) Rupert Murdoch is behind the break-in.
Ergo, unless and until any real investigatory groundwork is performed, and evidence presented, this will only serve to enable those less concerned with accuracy and fair play, and more concerned with bashing their adversaries in the media, to generate a FUD cloud. As most people don't read secondary sources, much less primary ones, the FUD cloud will be a success.
Slashdot Mirror
...a Starbucks, a Wal-Mart, a psychiatric bill, and a dogeared copy of "Being and Nothingness."
I'd disagree that it's at all obscure or novel among strict constructionists.
Um, organic as in taking it as a whole, and not only by section or phrase.
That's like asking how can you counterfeit counterfeit paper money.
I believe this is not properly taking the entire document as an organic one, and ignoring an extremely salient fact regarding the Federal Reserve Yes, it gives the Federal government the power to coin money. However, why would the Constitution in Article 1, Section 10, prohibit the States from making anything but gold and silver legal tender, if Article I, Section 8 allows the Federal government to not only coin currency, but print currency? The Federal government is not empowered to print currency, only coin it, and it would be contradictory to ban fiat currency among the States, but allow it within the Federal government. The Federal government, one must recall, was quite minute at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution, 1789, and it would be rather silly to invent "special" money for internal transactions within the Federal government only. However, your entire thesis falls apart into dust when one points out that the Federal Reserve is not an entity of the Federal government, or any other government. It is a privately owned institution. Article 1, Section 8 cannot apply.
I don't think so. If I'm a State, and I accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment of taxes, this de facto renders Federal Reserve Notes to be legal tender. The Federal Government can coerce the several States to accept the debt-backed fiat currency of the Federal Reserve as legal tender, but I'm not sure this was ever necessary. If the States had decided to operate on Constitutional principles, then yes, that would be a point of contention. Most people have no clue how fiat currency and fractional reserve banking function, and I'm certain you could include many politicians.
That's a blatant falsehood. Finance tends to deal with individual markets and microeconomics, whereas economics tends to deal with macroeconomics. Try being a finance major, there's a reason why you have to take a number of courses in economics. If you had a Venn diagram, you'd see a huge amount of overlap. They both deal with the economy, only with a slightly different attitude, and a nudge in scope.
"Fiat currencies allow non-market entities to regulate market economies. Without an "artifical" currency (not that gold is any less artificial, it's just a finite shared delusion) there is no (or very little) room for long-term actors to intervene in short-term crises"
You mean it allows governments to control the money supply, which has led to depressions, recessions, the boom and bust business cycles, and the inflation tax. Of course, depressions and recessions existed prior to the founding of the Fed, but they were far less serious and far more short term. Do you really think central planning works? If not, why are you making a special exception in this case?
With a gold standard, one rich person can control an improbably large percentage of the (finite) money supply. Or a million individuals can simply hoarde their money, reducing the supply in circulation, and the government has no easy way of resolving it, short of revaluing the currency which makes a gold standard into a slower fiat currency.
Gold cannot be a fiat currency, unless you have gained the ability to print gold. I'm sorry, but you don't even know what fiat currency is, and yet you're propounding upon it as if you understand its complexities, to say nothing of your self-awarded mastery of monetary policy.
I'm truly astounded this thoroughly discredited canard is still being circulated. You could read Professor Rothbard's "What Has the Government Done to Our Money?," but as the audience appears to be little trained or educated in basic economics, here is the relevant except, "II: Money in a Free Society, "The Problem of 'Hoarding' (http://www.mises.org/money.asp/):
The critic of monetary freedom is not so easily silenced, however. There is, in particular, the ancient bugbear of "hoarding." The image is conjured up of the selfish old miser who, perhaps irrationally, perhaps from evil motives, hoards up gold unused in his cellar or treasure trove--thereby stopping the flow of circulation and trade, causing depressions and other problems. Is hoarding really a menace? In the first place, what has simply happened is an increased demand for money on the part of the miser. As a result, prices of goods fall, and the purchasing power of the gold-ounce rises. There has been no loss to society, which simply carries on with a lower active supply of more "powerful" gold ounces. Even in the worst possible view of the matter, then, nothing has gone wrong, and monetary freedom creates no difficulties. But there is more to the problem than that. For it is by no means irrational for people to desire more or less money in their cash balances. Let us, at this point, study cash balances further. Why do people keep any cash balances at all? Suppose that all of us were able to foretell the future with absolute certainty. In that case, no one would have to keep cash balances on hand. [35] Everyone would know exactly how much he will spend, and how much income he will receive, at all future dates. He need not keep any money at hand, but will lend out his gold so as to receive his payments in the needed amounts on the very days he makes his expenditures. But, of course, we necessarily live in a world of uncertainty. People do not precisely know what will happen to them, or what their future incomes or costs will be. The more uncertain and fearful they are, the more cash balances they will want to hold; the more secure, the less cash they will wish to keep on hand. Another r
That pretty strongly says to me that they can't accept anything as legal tender other than gold or silver, as this would be tantamount to making it legal tender, which is prohibited. The Federal Government can not legally coerce the States to accept fiat currency as legal tender.
Actually, a great many economists are well aware of the fundamental contradictions of fiat currency, and it's obvious you yourself aren't an economist, or you wouldn't be spreading FUD on it. I'm in finance, a close partner to economics, and I can tell you that you're absolutely 100% mistaken in not taking these arguments seriously. Common sense indicates if everyone has 100 dollars, and then everyone is given an extra 100 dollars, your purchasing power will be exactly the same as it was before. Now guess what happens if you don't get that extra 100 dollars, but one or two people get an extra 10,000 dollars? What do you think happens then?
Look at the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. Gold and silver are the only legal tender, which means that legally, they are the only acceptable forms of payment of taxes.
If money is backed by gold then you can't logically trade gold separately from money. This means that gold is artificially valued, and the prices of things that use gold would increase for no sound economic reason.
That's because gold is money. If I use gold for something other than currency, I am simply valuing it as more productive in another capacity. Nothing is devalued, only changed in form.
Perhaps the existence of tort law has somehow escaped your notice?
Translation: We're going to make what you have now more expensive, so that solar power is a comparative bargain, but you'll still be paying a huge increase on your electrical bill so we can feel good about ourselves.
Is anyone else frightened that the government should have a "tech agenda," meaning further control and regulation of the tech industry, in the first place? Should be really be applauding political robber barons for stealing our tax dollars and enriching themselves from various government schemes? Getting in bed with the government is like getting into bed with a pitcher plant.
I don't read the classifieds in my newspaper, why should I have to look at ads on websites?
Beyond the uber-poster being completely clueless about Chernobyl and the rather minor and harmless incident at Three Mile Island (unless you count bad PR), a mineral that can somehow absorb radiation sounds hard to believe. How much radiation is the mineral alleged to absorb per unit of mass? What are you supposed to do with a now very high radioactively concentrated mineral? This sounds like more nationalistic chest pounding out of an increasingly hostile bear, from one of the sillier Russian tabloids.
I think you really need to get to know the guy and his positions before you start mislabeling him. He's not a populist at all. Try Edwards for that. He's not "neo-liberal," he's a proponent of hard currency, free markets and free trade. He's not "ultra-right-wing reactionary," whatever that means, but a staunch supporter of Constitutionally limited government. Backing the US Constitution is not "reactionary" or "populist." It's a show of integrity, by supporting the document our government is ostensibly governed and controlled by, the US Constitution. He's winning straw polls left and right, gathering support among Republicans and Democrats, who are all attracted by his message of freedom and liberty. If America isn't about freedom and liberty, I don't know what is.
Ron Paul isn't an ultra-conservative. He's a Constitutionalist. Huge difference. Also, last I checked, he wasn't complaining about liberalism much if at all, but mostly about the neo-cons, when it comes to political typologies.
It is very inappropriate to speculate about the Pope's second encyclical until after we've had a chance to read it. Also, since when does Slashdot delve into Catholicism's policies?
That algorithm is a model that does not match real world data. It might be useful to measure who has protection from the bureaucracy, but it won't and can't decipher how true something is simply by how many times and at what frequency people scribble over it. This algorithm is psuedo-scientific, by assuming a premise without investigating the veracity of said premise, and then running away with it as if it were a proven one.
That is a point, but irregardless of the effectiveness of the tax (which is not only not effective, but negatively effective), there isn't broadband in the middle of nowhere now, there probably won't be for the rest of this decade, and people should be responsible enough to work with what is, not what they want to be.
I'm embarrassed for New Hampshire. Stop whining. If you live in the middle of nowhere, don't expect to have all the amenities of a large town or city. You wouldn't expect to find an Asian market or a tapas bar there, why would you expect to find broadband? All are "public" amenities, but they aren't omnipresent, and one can't expect them to be. Either wait until broadband gets out to the boonies, or move. In the meantime, stop complaining about where you have chosen to live.
So what is science? If it's a Bachelors of Science, do you qualify, regardless of major? With college prices already skyrocketing due to artificial demand created by government subsidies, what will the government do when college prices increase at an even faster pace than they do now, and everyone starts demanding "free" tuition? The "free" tuition for the sciences will just keep becoming a larger and larger expense in the meantime. Your tax dollars at work.
That's not net neutrality. That's a private business with private property deciding how to allocate its bandwidth, just like anyone else. It's not the government taking private property by eminent domain, and forcing the private businesses to allocate bandwidth based on an "equal" basis, which is what net neutrality would do.
2) Do Fark admins not use basic anti-virus software?
3) The article is highly speculative, being based purely on circumstantial evidence regarding a possible motive, and is forced to use an ad hominem attack to support its conspiracy theory that Evil Overlord v2(tm) Rupert Murdoch is behind the break-in.
Ergo, unless and until any real investigatory groundwork is performed, and evidence presented, this will only serve to enable those less concerned with accuracy and fair play, and more concerned with bashing their adversaries in the media, to generate a FUD cloud. As most people don't read secondary sources, much less primary ones, the FUD cloud will be a success.