Because the Federal Reserve Act is in violation of Article 1 Sections 8 and 10 of the US Constitution.
So the government isn't allowed to outsource? That makes most anything the governemnt pays someone else to do unconstitutional. I don't think that was the intended meaning. I'd be interested if there were statements from the founders that back your assertion (no, not from the modern government-haters, I'm sure they have plenty to say on the matter).
If there was no inflation, the cost of money would be lower. At least, historically, it has approached that in times of lower inflation, and increases in times of higher inflation. There may always be some margin benefiting the institutions, but they are well linked to where there isn't much margin between stable investments and inflation. That's the system. Hating the system doesn't make my math wrong.
I asserted that inflation of 5% will mean that you'll need $105 to buy what was previously $100 worth of goods. Your link agrees with me, and disagrees with you. Perhaps the issue is that you are the one without the basic knowledge to understand common terms.
I just find it odd that I make one statement of fact that nobody has shown to be wrong, yet receive 100 or so replies, mostly agreeing with the math, but disagreeing because they don't like the tone/implications. "Inflation is evil. Any argument that makes inflation anything other than government theft must be wrong." The government isn't "stealing" anything. The government is taxing cash.
So, if unions were more common and the minimum wage were indexed, then there'd be no problem. Wages don't have to lag inflation, and often don't (unless you always assume you are paid in last year's dollars). Yes, wage earners are usually who is being screwed (and those on fixed incomes), but that doesn't change the fact that invested money returning inflation rate will make inflation a wash for that pile of money, and your used car will appreciate by inflation, as will your house, and other assets (even if one or more is also subject to deflation).
I vote to change the system. That you refuse to vote with me, wasting your vote, makes you the problem, not me. I haven't voted for a winning president. Ever. 20+ years of voting, and never once voted for the winner. While people like you keep causing the problem, I'll pay the smallest legal amount *you* voted for.
Perhaps I could take out some loans to purchase a building with (to *rent* a building with, as you don't own it until it's paid)
Maybe you should have spent more time in elementary learning English. When you are the owner of record of something, you "own" it, even if someone else has a lien on it. It's not "rent" because, so long as you fulfill the contract, they have no claim on it, and the contract has a definite end date, after which they will never have a claim on it.
Next you'll be telling us how you can't "own" any property at all, and it's all just rented from the government.
Yeah, with that level of understanding, I can see why it will take you so long to get your business off the ground. It probably won't get much off the ground, though.
To suggest that the average person should take out a million dollar loan is obscene, and you forget where YOU came from.
And you should read more. Have you never heard of the joke "how do you make a million dollars? Step 1, start with 5 million dollars..." I was making a play on that. Yes, I realize most people couldn't get a loan for $1,000,000. You need to get to about $12,000 a month income before a bank would give you that, but I've seen someone do that starting with less than you. He did it cleaning laundry. I didn't forget anything, other than how stupid people on Slashdot can be.
Use hard assets, not soft assets, in order to beat inflation.
The only correct translation in your list of "translations".
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you have ANY idea how much like a stuck up asshole, totally disconnected from the economic reality of the average citizen you sound? By your own admissions and details, you need a sizable amount of money just to play your game in the first place!
Yeah, I'm a fucking millionaire. You do realize that it's something like $90k household income to make it to the top 10%? I'm a stuck up asshole, completely disconnected from the economic reality of the average person by going to school, then getting a good job in IT. Why didn't you work harder in school? Why do you hate people who learned to do their own taxes, and read the tax law and save and use the copious shitty loopholes inserted by Conservatives?
I grew up in a single-parent household below "average" in income, so I do understand the economic reality of the average citizen. I started life "below average" and am ending it "above average". You've only experienced "below average", and apparently have great disdain for those that cross that line. Why do you think I should volunteer to pay more taxes? Did you volunteer extra taxes last year?
You need to be rich like me in order to get rich like me.
I'm just making more than inflation on my savings. I tell you how, and you get offended. And I started at 18, going to College with about $2000 from my parents and a "don't ask for more" speech. Was that starting rich? If you think not, then you could have all I have and more. Why don't you? Are you too lazy or too stupid? It's not easy. It requires spending less than you make, for many years. Most people have trouble doing that for two weeks. I saved 20% down for my first house on $20k per year. No reason anyone else can't do it. Yes, you can get "rich" on $20k per year. It's just hard.
What's the average return rate of the stock market? It's better than inflation, and interest paid is usually less. So split the difference and say the interest is equal to inflation. In that case, what's the problem?
The only thing people have come up with is that is close is that wages usually lag inflation, so people on wages will have wages increased after some delay. Which is completely separate from my point, which was in response to "inflation is theft". It isn't. It doesn't "steal" from you. It's a tax on liquidity. The less liquid your finances, the more likely they'll match or beat inflation.
I'm apparently so fucking stupid I can stump you with a simple question. When you have 5% inflation and 5% interest, will your money be worth more or less? Can you not figure that one out?
The trick is to gain assets greater than your assets. Borrow $1,000,000 and buy 4 $250,000 houses. There are some cheap ones out there now. Then, every year, you are paying 5% interest on the money,.and the houses will appreciate at 10%. Sell them in 10 years and you beat inflation, even after inflation and interest.
Of course, to get $1,000,000 in loans, you have to already have money. But I do have enough to borrow to beat inflation. If someone inflates against me, I raise rents on my tenants. Problem solved. I'm also earning 10% per year (average over 20 years) in the market with retirement and investments. And, of course, being in the top 10% of wage earners, I pay less than 10% of my income as federal income tax (and less than 20% in total taxes, summing all property, sales, state, local and federal taxes). My tax rate should be 3x what it is, but I'm happy to use the system to my benefit. Even if the system is broken.
So $100 in an account for a year, earning 5% is $105. At t=0, it's worth $100. At t=1, it's worth $100. So long as you invest in something that matches inflation, you aren't losing anything.
Do you need to go back to the 3rd grade for math? Percents and interest and inflation are apparently beyond you.
Your rate of return will always be less than real inflation, hence the difference is stolen from you.
When you put it in a guaranteed account, yes. But non-guaranteed accounts will often beat inflation. I've beat inflation with my 401(k) for 20+ straight years, averaging about 10% P.A.
There is always a time gap between the erosion of your purchasing power due to inflation and the point at which you get a raise. Because of this gap, you are always losing to inflation.
Ah yes, the last refuge of scoundrels, you make up something I didn't say to "show" I'm wrong. I was talking solely about money saved/invested, and not wage reductions in inflationary times. That's another reason union jobs are good. Most try to benchmark inflation so that you aren't always losing.
I guess that's the real reason Conservatives hate unions.
You are posting as AC because you want to fit in with the other AC trolls? You are the one that agreed with me that 5% interest in 5% inflation does not reduce your buying power, then argued because you wanted me to come to a different conclusion, but that's impossible as the facts are on my side, and you agreed with my facts, you just have a non-factual opinion you wanted to push.
So what's the solution to fractional reserve banking, if that's so bad? It's not a requirement, the requirement is that the fraction is no less than 20%, otherwise, we'd have 150% fractional banking, for every $1 you deposit, they'd lend $2.50
Nope, the number goes up roughtly in line with inflation. So money doesn't inflate, so long as you stop storing it under your mattress. Think of it as the tax on stupid and lazy. Invest it and it'll grow, not shrink.
So long as inflation is slow and predictable, it won't make your money worth less (again, unless you store it under your mattress).
At about -40, gasoline won't light in a car engine. If you are in the middle of nowhere with a cold engine, you'll be stuck for a while. Diesel will work better when cold because you don't have a diesel car without a heater inside the chamber.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Federal Reserve Act is in violation of Article 1 Sections 8 and 10 of the US Constitution.
So the government isn't allowed to outsource? That makes most anything the governemnt pays someone else to do unconstitutional. I don't think that was the intended meaning. I'd be interested if there were statements from the founders that back your assertion (no, not from the modern government-haters, I'm sure they have plenty to say on the matter).
If there was no inflation, the cost of money would be lower. At least, historically, it has approached that in times of lower inflation, and increases in times of higher inflation. There may always be some margin benefiting the institutions, but they are well linked to where there isn't much margin between stable investments and inflation. That's the system. Hating the system doesn't make my math wrong.
I asserted that inflation of 5% will mean that you'll need $105 to buy what was previously $100 worth of goods. Your link agrees with me, and disagrees with you. Perhaps the issue is that you are the one without the basic knowledge to understand common terms.
I just find it odd that I make one statement of fact that nobody has shown to be wrong, yet receive 100 or so replies, mostly agreeing with the math, but disagreeing because they don't like the tone/implications. "Inflation is evil. Any argument that makes inflation anything other than government theft must be wrong." The government isn't "stealing" anything. The government is taxing cash.
So, if unions were more common and the minimum wage were indexed, then there'd be no problem. Wages don't have to lag inflation, and often don't (unless you always assume you are paid in last year's dollars). Yes, wage earners are usually who is being screwed (and those on fixed incomes), but that doesn't change the fact that invested money returning inflation rate will make inflation a wash for that pile of money, and your used car will appreciate by inflation, as will your house, and other assets (even if one or more is also subject to deflation).
I vote to change the system. That you refuse to vote with me, wasting your vote, makes you the problem, not me. I haven't voted for a winning president. Ever. 20+ years of voting, and never once voted for the winner. While people like you keep causing the problem, I'll pay the smallest legal amount *you* voted for.
Perhaps I could take out some loans to purchase a building with (to *rent* a building with, as you don't own it until it's paid)
Maybe you should have spent more time in elementary learning English. When you are the owner of record of something, you "own" it, even if someone else has a lien on it. It's not "rent" because, so long as you fulfill the contract, they have no claim on it, and the contract has a definite end date, after which they will never have a claim on it.
Next you'll be telling us how you can't "own" any property at all, and it's all just rented from the government.
Yeah, with that level of understanding, I can see why it will take you so long to get your business off the ground. It probably won't get much off the ground, though.
To suggest that the average person should take out a million dollar loan is obscene, and you forget where YOU came from.
And you should read more. Have you never heard of the joke "how do you make a million dollars? Step 1, start with 5 million dollars..." I was making a play on that. Yes, I realize most people couldn't get a loan for $1,000,000. You need to get to about $12,000 a month income before a bank would give you that, but I've seen someone do that starting with less than you. He did it cleaning laundry. I didn't forget anything, other than how stupid people on Slashdot can be.
Why must money be balanced by property? Any property backing it is also arbitrary in value, even if there is some asserted intrinsic value.
And only 13.5 miles, if you convert to nautical miles in nautical areas.
Use hard assets, not soft assets, in order to beat inflation.
The only correct translation in your list of "translations".
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you have ANY idea how much like a stuck up asshole, totally disconnected from the economic reality of the average citizen you sound? By your own admissions and details, you need a sizable amount of money just to play your game in the first place!
Yeah, I'm a fucking millionaire. You do realize that it's something like $90k household income to make it to the top 10%? I'm a stuck up asshole, completely disconnected from the economic reality of the average person by going to school, then getting a good job in IT. Why didn't you work harder in school? Why do you hate people who learned to do their own taxes, and read the tax law and save and use the copious shitty loopholes inserted by Conservatives?
I grew up in a single-parent household below "average" in income, so I do understand the economic reality of the average citizen. I started life "below average" and am ending it "above average". You've only experienced "below average", and apparently have great disdain for those that cross that line. Why do you think I should volunteer to pay more taxes? Did you volunteer extra taxes last year?
You need to be rich like me in order to get rich like me.
I'm just making more than inflation on my savings. I tell you how, and you get offended. And I started at 18, going to College with about $2000 from my parents and a "don't ask for more" speech. Was that starting rich? If you think not, then you could have all I have and more. Why don't you? Are you too lazy or too stupid? It's not easy. It requires spending less than you make, for many years. Most people have trouble doing that for two weeks. I saved 20% down for my first house on $20k per year. No reason anyone else can't do it. Yes, you can get "rich" on $20k per year. It's just hard.
What's the average return rate of the stock market? It's better than inflation, and interest paid is usually less. So split the difference and say the interest is equal to inflation. In that case, what's the problem?
The only thing people have come up with is that is close is that wages usually lag inflation, so people on wages will have wages increased after some delay. Which is completely separate from my point, which was in response to "inflation is theft". It isn't. It doesn't "steal" from you. It's a tax on liquidity. The less liquid your finances, the more likely they'll match or beat inflation.
I'm apparently so fucking stupid I can stump you with a simple question. When you have 5% inflation and 5% interest, will your money be worth more or less? Can you not figure that one out?
Yes. Someone gets it. When the rates cancel out, "inflation" doesn't directly hurt you.
The trick is to gain assets greater than your assets. Borrow $1,000,000 and buy 4 $250,000 houses. There are some cheap ones out there now. Then, every year, you are paying 5% interest on the money, .and the houses will appreciate at 10%. Sell them in 10 years and you beat inflation, even after inflation and interest.
Of course, to get $1,000,000 in loans, you have to already have money. But I do have enough to borrow to beat inflation. If someone inflates against me, I raise rents on my tenants. Problem solved. I'm also earning 10% per year (average over 20 years) in the market with retirement and investments. And, of course, being in the top 10% of wage earners, I pay less than 10% of my income as federal income tax (and less than 20% in total taxes, summing all property, sales, state, local and federal taxes). My tax rate should be 3x what it is, but I'm happy to use the system to my benefit. Even if the system is broken.
So $100 in an account for a year, earning 5% is $105. At t=0, it's worth $100. At t=1, it's worth $100. So long as you invest in something that matches inflation, you aren't losing anything.
Do you need to go back to the 3rd grade for math? Percents and interest and inflation are apparently beyond you.
Your rate of return will always be less than real inflation, hence the difference is stolen from you.
When you put it in a guaranteed account, yes. But non-guaranteed accounts will often beat inflation. I've beat inflation with my 401(k) for 20+ straight years, averaging about 10% P.A.
There is always a time gap between the erosion of your purchasing power due to inflation and the point at which you get a raise. Because of this gap, you are always losing to inflation.
Ah yes, the last refuge of scoundrels, you make up something I didn't say to "show" I'm wrong. I was talking solely about money saved/invested, and not wage reductions in inflationary times. That's another reason union jobs are good. Most try to benchmark inflation so that you aren't always losing.
I guess that's the real reason Conservatives hate unions.
You are posting as AC because you want to fit in with the other AC trolls? You are the one that agreed with me that 5% interest in 5% inflation does not reduce your buying power, then argued because you wanted me to come to a different conclusion, but that's impossible as the facts are on my side, and you agreed with my facts, you just have a non-factual opinion you wanted to push.
So you are asserting that $105 after 5% inflation will not buy what $100 would buy before? Then how much will in buy?
5% inflation, 5% interest, money is worth the same at the end of the year. Where did you take algebra?
So what's the solution to fractional reserve banking, if that's so bad? It's not a requirement, the requirement is that the fraction is no less than 20%, otherwise, we'd have 150% fractional banking, for every $1 you deposit, they'd lend $2.50
So you agree with my argument, but disagree only on the rate of return of investment.
Prices go up 5% or the value of your money goes down 5%.
So you agree with me, and are just arguing the return on investment of banked money. Got it. Thanks for your agreement and vote of confidence.
Nope, the number goes up roughtly in line with inflation. So money doesn't inflate, so long as you stop storing it under your mattress. Think of it as the tax on stupid and lazy. Invest it and it'll grow, not shrink.
So long as inflation is slow and predictable, it won't make your money worth less (again, unless you store it under your mattress).
Prices go up 5%, interest/investment pays me 5%, so I lose nothing. Why are you hoarding cash under your mattress?
At about -40, gasoline won't light in a car engine. If you are in the middle of nowhere with a cold engine, you'll be stuck for a while. Diesel will work better when cold because you don't have a diesel car without a heater inside the chamber.