Generally in poker you are not playing against the house; you are playing against other guests. The casino takes a standard rake per hand so the casino makes the same amount regardless of who wins.
Of course, they still don't want people cheating because that is bad for business.
When the Federal Reserve can create purchasing power out of nothing to soak up all the bad debt (especially US government debt) then there is all the "money" in the world to give to other countries.
As the saying goes, foreign aid is taking the money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to the rich people in poor countries.
If a currency gets "more and more valuable" then why would another currency become prevalent? Only a government can influence the market like that, which is kind of what happened with gold.
When gold became too valuable to back the dollar due to the inflationist policies required to fund the warfare/welfare state, Nixon (and his masters) removed the international gold backing from the dollar (just the final step in a long series to remove gold backing).
However, fiat currencies always fail because governments can never resist the temptation to inflate. If Bitcoin actually does come to a finite number of Bitcoins then it will be fundamentally different from such fiat currencies.
Many people fail to realize that a unit of exchange is a commodity that serves a purpose in the market place that isn't all that different from other commodities. It is subject to supply and demand, and government monopolies on a given a given unit of exchange can warp but never defy the laws of supply and demand.
Wow, this reasoning is so flawed that I can only imagine you are trolling.
What you describe as "deflation" is actually "inflation." How can something be "not worth the paper it's printed on" (a consequence of inflating the currency) when it is at the same time the currency keeps getting more an more valuable"?
"... will the new FTC rules end up helping children (by enhancing their privacy and, if industry pundits are right, reducing the amount of content available online for children - thus enhancing their attention spans?"
That question is absurd. There is far, far more than enough content currently available for children that slowing, or even stopping development, would do nothing to affect the attention span of children. (Even assuming a negative impact from all this "content" - which seems dubious to me anyway.)
That was a win. I still don't understand why this is not the anti-pirate method of choice. It seems that the ship'S PMC have such a big advantage before the pirates can get out of the skiff and board.
If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the defendant does not even necessarily have to file a counterclaim to get a judgment in their favor. If the case is abandoned for lack of prosecution, the defendant can generally get a judgment for at least their costs and, depending on the type of case, for their attorneys' fees.
With a judgment in their favor, the defendant could then call the plaintiff (now judgment debtor) in for a debtor's exam. If the debtor fails to appear, that's contempt of court and generally a warrant for the debtor's arrest is issued.
No, that is wrong. A decrease in natural resources leads to a decrease in supply. Decrease in supply equals an increase in demand. Prices rise due to supply and demand in that case, not inflation.
No, you are wrong. Inflation is, by definition, an increase in the money supply. An increase in the money supply tends to lead to an uneven rise in prices throughout the markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they still don't want people cheating because that is bad for business.
... hurts my brane.
You mean like Michael Hastings?
The laws and of supply and demand apply to education, regardless of how warped the dynamic is by government interference. Is anyone surprised by this?
When the Federal Reserve can create purchasing power out of nothing to soak up all the bad debt (especially US government debt) then there is all the "money" in the world to give to other countries.
As the saying goes, foreign aid is taking the money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to the rich people in poor countries.
Well said.
If a currency gets "more and more valuable" then why would another currency become prevalent? Only a government can influence the market like that, which is kind of what happened with gold.
When gold became too valuable to back the dollar due to the inflationist policies required to fund the warfare/welfare state, Nixon (and his masters) removed the international gold backing from the dollar (just the final step in a long series to remove gold backing).
However, fiat currencies always fail because governments can never resist the temptation to inflate. If Bitcoin actually does come to a finite number of Bitcoins then it will be fundamentally different from such fiat currencies.
Yes, this is how economics works.
Many people fail to realize that a unit of exchange is a commodity that serves a purpose in the market place that isn't all that different from other commodities. It is subject to supply and demand, and government monopolies on a given a given unit of exchange can warp but never defy the laws of supply and demand.
Wow, this reasoning is so flawed that I can only imagine you are trolling.
What you describe as "deflation" is actually "inflation." How can something be "not worth the paper it's printed on" (a consequence of inflating the currency) when it is at the same time the currency keeps getting more an more valuable"?
You are describing opposite currency valuations.
Which is it?
Deflationary spiral? You mean the currency becomes stronger, rewarding savers rather than debtors? Explain how this is a bad thing, Mr. Krugman.
That question is absurd. There is far, far more than enough content currently available for children that slowing, or even stopping development, would do nothing to affect the attention span of children. (Even assuming a negative impact from all this "content" - which seems dubious to me anyway.)
Would it be ironic if the story was a troll to stir up Slashdot debate about what is and what is not "trolling"?
One percent perspiration, 99% litigation.
When money increases in value over time, savers are rewarded.
When money decreases in value over time, debtors are rewarded.
Now do you see why our government favors inflation?
... against the biggest counterfeiters: the world's central banks.
"A multiplicity of laws is an embarrassment to justice."
We have become a nation of too many laws and too little justice.
I just finished Leonard Susskind's "The Black Hole War" - also very readable and informative.
That was a win. I still don't understand why this is not the anti-pirate method of choice. It seems that the ship'S PMC have such a big advantage before the pirates can get out of the skiff and board.
If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the defendant does not even necessarily have to file a counterclaim to get a judgment in their favor. If the case is abandoned for lack of prosecution, the defendant can generally get a judgment for at least their costs and, depending on the type of case, for their attorneys' fees.
With a judgment in their favor, the defendant could then call the plaintiff (now judgment debtor) in for a debtor's exam. If the debtor fails to appear, that's contempt of court and generally a warrant for the debtor's arrest is issued.
That $422M given to PBS is a powerful pro-war propaganda "investment."
Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriner_Stoddard_Eccles
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/99-06/martin.cfm
(The entire treatise "What Has Government Done to our Money" is excellent reading).
Schiff: http://www.schiffradio.com/b/Pentonomics---The-Cause-and-Evidence-of-Inflation/419269008642342955.html
Schiff consistently explains inflation as an increase in the money supply throughout his work. More can be read here (why not listen to the guys that were right?):
http://www.europac.net/research_analysis/commentary_view/Peter%20Schiff
Hazlitt/Mises: http://mises.org/daily/2914
Silly me.
No, that is wrong. A decrease in natural resources leads to a decrease in supply. Decrease in supply equals an increase in demand. Prices rise due to supply and demand in that case, not inflation.
No, you are wrong. Inflation is, by definition, an increase in the money supply. An increase in the money supply tends to lead to an uneven rise in prices throughout the markets.