After all, we're talking about national security here. That means people who were in charge of information "of the government" and using it for their own personal ends. None of those people you mentioned did that.
Ah, I see the source of the confusion. No, banks don't work that way today. Their loans cannot exceed their deposits.
When a bank makes a loan, the loan is accounted as an asset to the bank (an Accounts Receivable) and as a liability to its deposits. In other words: if a bank makes a $10,000 loan, it has +$10,000 (A/R) and -$10,000 (liability to depositors). Each loan is a deposit.
In essence, a bank can have $100k of deposits and then immediately create $200k of money by loaning out a bunch of money to be spent. It's... weird, and annoying to get your head around. In theory it works the way you describe; in practice there is a lot of handwaving.
Either way, one dollar goes in and four people can simultaneously spend that dollar.
I remember when everyone was alleging Microsoft, Sony, and the lot were using high-end, pre-rendered digital graphics in place of gameplay to oversell their consoles.
It's by nation; and it doesn't guarantee anything except a share of per-capita purchasing power. This isn't "solve the individual human problem"; it's "solve the entire economic problem of recessions, poverty, and job availability". You use welfare and social insurances for the individual human problems.
Use a universal dividend. It's a demogrant, but it's not basic income: it won't pay for the things you need and it's not guaranteed to go up or down. It tracks our productivity, essentially: if we have more income per capita, then the dividend increases by that same amount--no tax adjustments necessary.
This solves basically every economic problem. You still use other social insurances because solving those problems directly is more-efficient.
Direct social insurances go away when you resolve the microeconomy: welfare money enters the local economy, gets spent, creates job demand, and then vanishes when people become employed, reducing the supportable jobs and causing unemployment. You stasis with your city in poverty, but not in the worst possible poverty.
A dividend keeps paying, so you transition support for those first service-level jobs (selling things to the local economy, which doesn't draw outside income) onto that basis. The economy continues to strengthen, and can eventually transition to stronger service jobs and greater reach, stabilizing itself.
I designed the American Citizen's Dividend in such a way as to have the greatest impact on the poorest, and to reclaim as you move up from there. In 2016 it turned out to be an overall tax cut: I restructured $1.1 trillion of Federal spending into $2.0 trillion, with the Dividend itself paying benefits offsetting $1.2 trillion of taxes (the person receiving the benefit paid some amount in taxes, and we deduct up to the full benefit from that amount; you count up $1.2 trillion or so). That's +$0.9 trillion, -$1.2 trillion, a net $0.3 trillion reduction in tax burdens.
Meanwhile your overall general tax rate is a bit higher as you go up through middle-class. That means you're getting $6,000 of Dividend, but only coming out $4,000 or $2,000 ahead. The poorest people don't have much income to tax, so they're coming out $5,500 ahead. The rich end up breaking even (the rough model includes a 3.4% tax cut at the top tax bracket, which we can backfill with taxes to cover universal healthcare, college, and social security--universal healthcare is about a 1.6% FICA on all personal income, seriously).
That means wherever you have concentrated poverty--lots of poor people, sudden unemployment--you have the biggest absolute and relative impact. For the poorer, the Dividend represents a greater dollar increase in take-home income over 2016 tax policy, and the Dividend represents a greater percentage of their spendable income.
That's an automatic, perfect economic stimulus without deficit. It starts repairing recessions before a recession comes in. These things are considered impossible under modern economic theory, so of course I figured out how to do it in two hours on a weekend.
Don't worry, I'm not just ranting on Slashdot. It seems the most-influential people in the field have taken sudden interest in my research, so this is all quickly becoming somebody else's problem. By September, it will be too late: once I pass the new theory on to more-competent and well-placed interests, it can no longer be stopped.
It's funny that you don't see the connection between the two.
I do see the connection between the two. The CEO of Walmart makes about 0.2 cents per hour per employee. The CEO of Home Depot makes about $20 per year per employee. The CEO of ManPower makes about 6 cents per hour per employee, or $120/year per each employee.
There's something to be said about having 1.5 million employees.
I'd imagine you could do that, too; although most of the time people just find ballot boxes (Note: Daily Kos is very liberal and kind of crazy, hurls accusations of malice without hesitation), additional ballots, or whatnot.
I don't see how you keep missing my point. It works like this
Okay, let's show how this works in the current fractional reserve system, at 10:1 reserve ratio.
Tuesday:
I borrow 10 BTC from Bank A (B00-B09) and buy a car. The dealer deposits the day's receipts in Bank B. Bank B now has B00-B09. Meanwhile, You borrow 10 BTC from Bank B (B10-B19) and remodel your house, The contractor deposits the money with Bank A
Tuesday EOD:
Bank A has B10-B19
Bank B has B00-B09
In today's fractional reserve, it looks like this:
You deposit 10 BTC in Bank A.
Alice borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Bob borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Jim borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Joe borrows 10BTC from bank A for a car. Robyn borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Chuck borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Cindy borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Lauren borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Dave borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Jack borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car.
The car dealer keeps their money in Bank B.
Monday's EOD:
Bank A has B00-B09.
Bank B has 100BTC which are loaned from the basis of B00-B09.
Notice that Bank A possesses the 10BTC you deposited, and no other BTC. Bank A made loans of 100BTC. Those 100BTC are deposited in Bank B.
Now: how did 90 BTC which were not mined and did not exist at the time get into Bank B?
Paper Voting is subject to corrupt officials, but generally hard to hack wide scale. Further, voting irregularities are easier to spot. And verification of vote tallies are easy.
It's in general difficult to manipulate, yes; although rampant manipulation has been a problem in the past, and continues today with ballot boxes being lost and found frequently.
there is no way to verify vote tallies that have been tampered with at the machine level
You can make it impossible to hide such tampering. I have described how.
since those machines are electronically connected it is much easier for ONE hacker to affect a large range of voting tabulations
There is no radio in an electronic voting machine or electronic ballot box. These are not plugged into any network. If they are, you have zero integrity.
The software must be verified in a non-repudiated method, such that the exact image on these machines is public and can be verified and tested forever. At poll open, the software actually on the machine must be known and exposed--not the software proposed, but the software actually loaded onto the machine. This is non-repudiated: once the public has looked, you cannot go back and change things before they find the dirty part. It's simply impossible.
You're trying to install a security product inside a vulnerable system to detect compromise. Not good enough. Integrity must be non-repudiated.
Voting infrastructure is harder than voting machines. Paper voting is notoriously vulnerable to corrupt officials; paper audit trails are manipulable and have been used to identify voters and their votes; electronic voting machines can be proven non-tampered, and the votes proven non-tampered. The voting infrastructure, though? That's centralized, and prone to all sorts of attacks--not just computer hacking, but insider threat and social engineering.
Your best protection against infrastructure attacks is same-day registration and same-day party affiliation re-registration.
Banks can't print money these days. The bank must first have $2000 in deposits before it can loan out $2000. (As an aside, the bank can write an insurance policy for $2000 without the full amount on hand, but we don't need to consider that form of increasing the money supply to see that it increases.)
In the US, the monetary basis is something like 11:1, which means a bank with $1,000 can loan out $11,000. It's a bit more complex than that, with 33:1 in the low-reserve-ratio range and 10:1 in the larger range. Small banks with minimal bail-out costs can loan a lot more than they have on hand.
Historically, the US has done very little of that.
Actually, that is exactly what the US does. We alter treasury bond rates to create a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount owed, and then print up the difference. If the labor applied expands by 1%, we issue more currency in this manner to raise the monetary basis. The fractional reserve system handles the rest: banks have a billion more dollars on hand (newly-minted) and can loan out $10 billion on top of that.
The same goes for inflation: if there is a sort of labor glut or productivity gain leading to falling prices, we issue more currency and run looser monetary policy to cause more purchasing, more income, and more inflation.
For the past 30 years we've looted the social security trust fund dry instead, but that ran out.
When the Social Security program was established, we created a new Treasury debt object for the Social Security Trust fund. The debt object can only be held by Social Security and cannot be sold. It has fixed maturity.
For every surplus dollar, retaining that dollar (not spending it) is equivalent to un-issuing currency (un-printing money). This reduces spending and slows the economy down. To correct for this, the Trust buys Treasury Debt Objects and holds them until there is a deficit. During Social Security deficit, the Trust calls the Treasury on those debts. This derives the payouts from economic growth.
Social Security is insolvent when it runs out of debts to call. Every penny paid into the program either has been paid out or is still available to Social Security--it hasn't been looted, raided, or whatever.
The Social Security old-age, survivors, and disability insurance pensions program collects its premium as a tax on wages up to a certain cap. Should that pool of taxable money not represent the same portion of all income, Social Security's capacity to pay shrinks as a proportion of per-beneficiary gross national income. That means our capacity to pay is dependent not simply on raising the Social Security cap with cost-of-living, but rather on raising it and adjusting the tax rate based on cost-of-living and the distribution of income and the number of program recipients.
Imagine what would happen if we didn't adjust the program cap and tax rates correctly.
my point is, the government can do plenty to manipulate the money supply without printing money, through regulation of bank lending practices. And that's the norm in the US, until recently.
You said those lending practices don't exist when you claimed banks can only lend out exactly the cash they have on hand and no more.
the trick the Fed came up with to "print money" would work fine with BTC too, sadly.
Only if you can put on the blockchain that multiple people are holding the same BTC, or create more BTC. BTC is designed specifically to make that impossible, or else you could mine a hell of a lot of BTC right now.
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
Yes. You do realize if you put $200 in savings, the bank can loan out $2,000, right? They don't have to find $2,000 on-hand.
With BTC, the bank can't loan out 2,000 BTC if they have 200. Every fractional BTC spent essentially traces back to a specific serial number. You can't loan more into existence.
That's just not how banks work, sorry. There will be 0 idle in savings. They will loan all of it out (well, 99%).
So you're saying if $1,000 is spent and $1,000 is kept in savings, and then the bank loans out that $1,000 from savings which then gets spent, $3,000 are spent?
Let me help you examine that question: There are physically $2,000. $1,000 are used to purchase goods; $1,000 are put in savings and not spent (idle in savings). The bank loans that $1,000 to someone who spends it.
I'm saying that's $1,000 spent plus $1,000 spent, out of a total $2,000 in existence. You're saying that doesn't work that way, because that $1,000 isn't idle in savings--so you suggest $3,000 has been spent.
How did you add 1 + 1 = 3?
You can loan (almost) all the gold that was deposited, physical or otherwise. Most of which will be deposited in another bank, where again it will be loaned out.
The loan has to be paid back. It's time-sensitive. You can't hop from institution to institution and invent money out of nowhere; there has to be income. With hard currency like gold or bitcoin, where you can't just magically make more, it becomes impossible to pay all of the wages that are earning the income to pay back loans.
Alice deposits money in a bank, which loans the money to Bob. Bob now works to get income to pay the loan back; however, Alice also works, and must receive income for her work. Well, that one chunk of gold can't both go to Alice and Bob. There are only 1,000 chunks of gold to give out, and half of them are in Eve's account--who Bob paid with Alice's gold.
With fiat, we just print more money and pretend there are 1,500 chunks of gold, and nobody ever gets all their gold. With BTC, the block chain tells you where BTC come from, and BTC only come from NP-hard proof, so you can't do fractional reserve banking or otherwise issue more BTC into circulation. That's the whole point of BTC.
the awkwardness of doing this with chunks of gold is what led to the invention of paper money
Yes, and paper money eventually broke from gold so we could add money when we have more people making the same goods or the same work producing more goods. We adjust the money supply to the labor supply and the productivity rate. That's mathematically-impossible with BTC.
Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value.
I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn. I'm not taking that on blind faith. Mind you the building they're using now was probably ridiculously-expensive to build--their space ship building cost like $400 million, while that much office space only goes on the market for about 1/4 that.
I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.
One party lying does not validate the other party's claims. Both can be full of crap. I want to see how they got their numbers.
That's part of being willing to take the offer. That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple. The market value is much lower than the value to Apple. It really is that simple; just nobody is willing to pay that much, because the building isn't worth it.
If everyone's assessment on existing construction goes up proportionately, then no one's tax bill increases.
Not if they keep the same city tax rate and bill you $375 instead of $45/year--which is what actually happens. Back around 2005, this resulted in a bunch of people's property taxes increasing from about $200/year to $4,000 in one year's reassessment. The city had decided the "economic reconstruction" of the area had completed because a bunch of upper-middle-class folks moved into the area as poorer folks moved out, and re-assessed the houses at half a million dollars instead of $20,000.
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply.
That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof. When someone comes to get their Bitcoin, there has to be a Bitcoin physically available for them: you can only loan out what's on hand.
That means there aren't 30 million BTC in the money supply. There are 20 million BTC, of which 10 million are in savings accounts and thus are being loaned around. 20 million BTC, minus 10 million BTC idle in savings, = 10 million BTC in the money supply. That 10 million BTC, plus 10 million BTC being loaned from those savings reserves, = 20 million BTC in the money supply.
Do you understand now why you cannot have a money supply larger than the physical number of bitcoins available?
It's like gold. You can loan paper money that says it represents gold and then do fraction on that (loan out 100 pounds of imaginary gold when you only have 50 pounds); but if you're actually giving people physical chunks of gold, you can only loan the gold physically on hand.
We know the type of property, the size, the cost to rebuild, the usual cost for office space of that size and in that area, and so forth. We can make analogous estimates.
Estimating is an entire technical field, and is a knowledge area for project managers.
No, I'm suggesting the possibility of things like collusion exists. Kickbacks are more the sort of thing you get when dealing with an independent third party (a government official pays the private contractor a little bonus).
Historically, there has been a lot of elections fraud; that doesn't mean every election is stolen, even if it looks like it might have been, but it sure as hell means you don't trust the board of elections, voting machine manufacturers, political parties, or anyone else to act in good faith. The same is true when a state wants to tax somebody on a property they value at a really high number and there is a dispute over whether it's actually a fair market assessment: show me why that's fair if you want me to believe it.
It's not one-way, either. Do you know what my tax assessment is? $1,000 on land, $2,000 on my house. The city is artificially lowering cost-of-living in my area by dishonestly assessing our property. Because of certain state laws, I'm actually able to go back and force the city to not charge me property tax for another few decades if they try to raise this, too--which is good, because plenty of my neighbors are too poor to afford sudden water bill and property tax hikes, and they have a defense against that sort of thing if the city tries to run them out.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, we're talking about national security here. That means people who were in charge of information "of the government" and using it for their own personal ends. None of those people you mentioned did that.
Mark Felt. Daniel Ellsberg.
Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge? They passed that. I was subject to it for a brief period of several months.
Well Washington lead a terrorist army against the sovereign nation and then became president of all the land.
You don't have much of a perspective of what would constitute treason in 1770, do you?
He's got tapes and should be very afraid.
Like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton.
Someone told me yesterday that the thirteenth amendment prohibits free healthcare. He actually knew what was in the thirteenth amendment.
Ah, I see the source of the confusion. No, banks don't work that way today. Their loans cannot exceed their deposits.
When a bank makes a loan, the loan is accounted as an asset to the bank (an Accounts Receivable) and as a liability to its deposits. In other words: if a bank makes a $10,000 loan, it has +$10,000 (A/R) and -$10,000 (liability to depositors). Each loan is a deposit.
In essence, a bank can have $100k of deposits and then immediately create $200k of money by loaning out a bunch of money to be spent. It's ... weird, and annoying to get your head around. In theory it works the way you describe; in practice there is a lot of handwaving.
Either way, one dollar goes in and four people can simultaneously spend that dollar.
I remember when everyone was alleging Microsoft, Sony, and the lot were using high-end, pre-rendered digital graphics in place of gameplay to oversell their consoles.
Are we still doing this?
It's by nation; and it doesn't guarantee anything except a share of per-capita purchasing power. This isn't "solve the individual human problem"; it's "solve the entire economic problem of recessions, poverty, and job availability". You use welfare and social insurances for the individual human problems.
Use a universal dividend. It's a demogrant, but it's not basic income: it won't pay for the things you need and it's not guaranteed to go up or down. It tracks our productivity, essentially: if we have more income per capita, then the dividend increases by that same amount--no tax adjustments necessary.
This solves basically every economic problem. You still use other social insurances because solving those problems directly is more-efficient.
Direct social insurances go away when you resolve the microeconomy: welfare money enters the local economy, gets spent, creates job demand, and then vanishes when people become employed, reducing the supportable jobs and causing unemployment. You stasis with your city in poverty, but not in the worst possible poverty.
A dividend keeps paying, so you transition support for those first service-level jobs (selling things to the local economy, which doesn't draw outside income) onto that basis. The economy continues to strengthen, and can eventually transition to stronger service jobs and greater reach, stabilizing itself.
I designed the American Citizen's Dividend in such a way as to have the greatest impact on the poorest, and to reclaim as you move up from there. In 2016 it turned out to be an overall tax cut: I restructured $1.1 trillion of Federal spending into $2.0 trillion, with the Dividend itself paying benefits offsetting $1.2 trillion of taxes (the person receiving the benefit paid some amount in taxes, and we deduct up to the full benefit from that amount; you count up $1.2 trillion or so). That's +$0.9 trillion, -$1.2 trillion, a net $0.3 trillion reduction in tax burdens.
Meanwhile your overall general tax rate is a bit higher as you go up through middle-class. That means you're getting $6,000 of Dividend, but only coming out $4,000 or $2,000 ahead. The poorest people don't have much income to tax, so they're coming out $5,500 ahead. The rich end up breaking even (the rough model includes a 3.4% tax cut at the top tax bracket, which we can backfill with taxes to cover universal healthcare, college, and social security--universal healthcare is about a 1.6% FICA on all personal income, seriously).
That means wherever you have concentrated poverty--lots of poor people, sudden unemployment--you have the biggest absolute and relative impact. For the poorer, the Dividend represents a greater dollar increase in take-home income over 2016 tax policy, and the Dividend represents a greater percentage of their spendable income.
That's an automatic, perfect economic stimulus without deficit. It starts repairing recessions before a recession comes in. These things are considered impossible under modern economic theory, so of course I figured out how to do it in two hours on a weekend.
Don't worry, I'm not just ranting on Slashdot. It seems the most-influential people in the field have taken sudden interest in my research, so this is all quickly becoming somebody else's problem. By September, it will be too late: once I pass the new theory on to more-competent and well-placed interests, it can no longer be stopped.
It's funny that you don't see the connection between the two.
I do see the connection between the two. The CEO of Walmart makes about 0.2 cents per hour per employee. The CEO of Home Depot makes about $20 per year per employee. The CEO of ManPower makes about 6 cents per hour per employee, or $120/year per each employee.
There's something to be said about having 1.5 million employees.
I'd imagine you could do that, too; although most of the time people just find ballot boxes (Note: Daily Kos is very liberal and kind of crazy, hurls accusations of malice without hesitation), additional ballots, or whatnot.
It's a really damned old problem.
I don't see how you keep missing my point. It works like this
Okay, let's show how this works in the current fractional reserve system, at 10:1 reserve ratio.
Tuesday:
I borrow 10 BTC from Bank A (B00-B09) and buy a car. The dealer deposits the day's receipts in Bank B. Bank B now has B00-B09. Meanwhile, You borrow 10 BTC from Bank B (B10-B19) and remodel your house, The contractor deposits the money with Bank A
Tuesday EOD:
Bank A has B10-B19
Bank B has B00-B09
In today's fractional reserve, it looks like this:
You deposit 10 BTC in Bank A.
Alice borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Bob borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Jim borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Joe borrows 10BTC from bank A for a car. Robyn borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Chuck borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Cindy borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Lauren borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Dave borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car. Jack borrows 10BTC from Bank A for a car.
The car dealer keeps their money in Bank B.
Monday's EOD:
Bank A has B00-B09.
Bank B has 100BTC which are loaned from the basis of B00-B09.
Notice that Bank A possesses the 10BTC you deposited, and no other BTC. Bank A made loans of 100BTC. Those 100BTC are deposited in Bank B.
Now: how did 90 BTC which were not mined and did not exist at the time get into Bank B?
Paper Voting is subject to corrupt officials, but generally hard to hack wide scale. Further, voting irregularities are easier to spot. And verification of vote tallies are easy.
It's in general difficult to manipulate, yes; although rampant manipulation has been a problem in the past, and continues today with ballot boxes being lost and found frequently.
there is no way to verify vote tallies that have been tampered with at the machine level
You can make it impossible to hide such tampering. I have described how.
since those machines are electronically connected it is much easier for ONE hacker to affect a large range of voting tabulations
There is no radio in an electronic voting machine or electronic ballot box. These are not plugged into any network. If they are, you have zero integrity.
The software must be verified in a non-repudiated method, such that the exact image on these machines is public and can be verified and tested forever. At poll open, the software actually on the machine must be known and exposed--not the software proposed, but the software actually loaded onto the machine. This is non-repudiated: once the public has looked, you cannot go back and change things before they find the dirty part. It's simply impossible.
You're trying to install a security product inside a vulnerable system to detect compromise. Not good enough. Integrity must be non-repudiated.
Voting infrastructure is harder than voting machines. Paper voting is notoriously vulnerable to corrupt officials; paper audit trails are manipulable and have been used to identify voters and their votes; electronic voting machines can be proven non-tampered, and the votes proven non-tampered. The voting infrastructure, though? That's centralized, and prone to all sorts of attacks--not just computer hacking, but insider threat and social engineering.
Your best protection against infrastructure attacks is same-day registration and same-day party affiliation re-registration.
After all, your opinion is as valid as anyone's.
There are no opinions; there are only facts. If they can supply facts, they can prove their assertions.
Banks can't print money these days. The bank must first have $2000 in deposits before it can loan out $2000. (As an aside, the bank can write an insurance policy for $2000 without the full amount on hand, but we don't need to consider that form of increasing the money supply to see that it increases.)
In the US, the monetary basis is something like 11:1, which means a bank with $1,000 can loan out $11,000. It's a bit more complex than that, with 33:1 in the low-reserve-ratio range and 10:1 in the larger range. Small banks with minimal bail-out costs can loan a lot more than they have on hand.
Historically, the US has done very little of that.
Actually, that is exactly what the US does. We alter treasury bond rates to create a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount owed, and then print up the difference. If the labor applied expands by 1%, we issue more currency in this manner to raise the monetary basis. The fractional reserve system handles the rest: banks have a billion more dollars on hand (newly-minted) and can loan out $10 billion on top of that.
The same goes for inflation: if there is a sort of labor glut or productivity gain leading to falling prices, we issue more currency and run looser monetary policy to cause more purchasing, more income, and more inflation.
For the past 30 years we've looted the social security trust fund dry instead, but that ran out.
When the Social Security program was established, we created a new Treasury debt object for the Social Security Trust fund. The debt object can only be held by Social Security and cannot be sold. It has fixed maturity.
For every surplus dollar, retaining that dollar (not spending it) is equivalent to un-issuing currency (un-printing money). This reduces spending and slows the economy down. To correct for this, the Trust buys Treasury Debt Objects and holds them until there is a deficit. During Social Security deficit, the Trust calls the Treasury on those debts. This derives the payouts from economic growth.
Social Security is insolvent when it runs out of debts to call. Every penny paid into the program either has been paid out or is still available to Social Security--it hasn't been looted, raided, or whatever.
The Social Security old-age, survivors, and disability insurance pensions program collects its premium as a tax on wages up to a certain cap. Should that pool of taxable money not represent the same portion of all income, Social Security's capacity to pay shrinks as a proportion of per-beneficiary gross national income. That means our capacity to pay is dependent not simply on raising the Social Security cap with cost-of-living, but rather on raising it and adjusting the tax rate based on cost-of-living and the distribution of income and the number of program recipients.
Imagine what would happen if we didn't adjust the program cap and tax rates correctly.
my point is, the government can do plenty to manipulate the money supply without printing money, through regulation of bank lending practices. And that's the norm in the US, until recently.
You said those lending practices don't exist when you claimed banks can only lend out exactly the cash they have on hand and no more.
the trick the Fed came up with to "print money" would work fine with BTC too, sadly.
Only if you can put on the blockchain that multiple people are holding the same BTC, or create more BTC. BTC is designed specifically to make that impossible, or else you could mine a hell of a lot of BTC right now.
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
Yes. You do realize if you put $200 in savings, the bank can loan out $2,000, right? They don't have to find $2,000 on-hand.
With BTC, the bank can't loan out 2,000 BTC if they have 200. Every fractional BTC spent essentially traces back to a specific serial number. You can't loan more into existence.
That's just not how banks work, sorry. There will be 0 idle in savings. They will loan all of it out (well, 99%).
So you're saying if $1,000 is spent and $1,000 is kept in savings, and then the bank loans out that $1,000 from savings which then gets spent, $3,000 are spent?
Let me help you examine that question: There are physically $2,000. $1,000 are used to purchase goods; $1,000 are put in savings and not spent (idle in savings). The bank loans that $1,000 to someone who spends it.
I'm saying that's $1,000 spent plus $1,000 spent, out of a total $2,000 in existence. You're saying that doesn't work that way, because that $1,000 isn't idle in savings--so you suggest $3,000 has been spent.
How did you add 1 + 1 = 3?
You can loan (almost) all the gold that was deposited, physical or otherwise. Most of which will be deposited in another bank, where again it will be loaned out.
The loan has to be paid back. It's time-sensitive. You can't hop from institution to institution and invent money out of nowhere; there has to be income. With hard currency like gold or bitcoin, where you can't just magically make more, it becomes impossible to pay all of the wages that are earning the income to pay back loans.
Alice deposits money in a bank, which loans the money to Bob. Bob now works to get income to pay the loan back; however, Alice also works, and must receive income for her work. Well, that one chunk of gold can't both go to Alice and Bob. There are only 1,000 chunks of gold to give out, and half of them are in Eve's account--who Bob paid with Alice's gold.
With fiat, we just print more money and pretend there are 1,500 chunks of gold, and nobody ever gets all their gold. With BTC, the block chain tells you where BTC come from, and BTC only come from NP-hard proof, so you can't do fractional reserve banking or otherwise issue more BTC into circulation. That's the whole point of BTC.
the awkwardness of doing this with chunks of gold is what led to the invention of paper money
Yes, and paper money eventually broke from gold so we could add money when we have more people making the same goods or the same work producing more goods. We adjust the money supply to the labor supply and the productivity rate. That's mathematically-impossible with BTC.
Please present evidence that the assessors are valuing a property on it's worth to the owner and not the market value.
I'm suggesting the assessors need to provide their methodology to show the building's worth is $1Bn. I'm not taking that on blind faith. Mind you the building they're using now was probably ridiculously-expensive to build--their space ship building cost like $400 million, while that much office space only goes on the market for about 1/4 that.
I am just saying $200 is silly and a waste of time.
One party lying does not validate the other party's claims. Both can be full of crap. I want to see how they got their numbers.
That's part of being willing to take the offer. That's not the market value of the building; it's the value of the building to Apple. The market value is much lower than the value to Apple. It really is that simple; just nobody is willing to pay that much, because the building isn't worth it.
If everyone's assessment on existing construction goes up proportionately, then no one's tax bill increases.
Not if they keep the same city tax rate and bill you $375 instead of $45/year--which is what actually happens. Back around 2005, this resulted in a bunch of people's property taxes increasing from about $200/year to $4,000 in one year's reassessment. The city had decided the "economic reconstruction" of the area had completed because a bunch of upper-middle-class folks moved into the area as poorer folks moved out, and re-assessed the houses at half a million dollars instead of $20,000.
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply.
That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof. When someone comes to get their Bitcoin, there has to be a Bitcoin physically available for them: you can only loan out what's on hand.
That means there aren't 30 million BTC in the money supply. There are 20 million BTC, of which 10 million are in savings accounts and thus are being loaned around. 20 million BTC, minus 10 million BTC idle in savings, = 10 million BTC in the money supply. That 10 million BTC, plus 10 million BTC being loaned from those savings reserves, = 20 million BTC in the money supply.
Do you understand now why you cannot have a money supply larger than the physical number of bitcoins available?
It's like gold. You can loan paper money that says it represents gold and then do fraction on that (loan out 100 pounds of imaginary gold when you only have 50 pounds); but if you're actually giving people physical chunks of gold, you can only loan the gold physically on hand.
The assessor is a Government official. They work for the Government, and are invested in getting income for the Government.
It's like having a candidate for office count the ballots, and suggesting they might be bribed by their opponent to miscount a few ballots for them.
We know the type of property, the size, the cost to rebuild, the usual cost for office space of that size and in that area, and so forth. We can make analogous estimates.
Estimating is an entire technical field, and is a knowledge area for project managers.
No, I'm suggesting the possibility of things like collusion exists. Kickbacks are more the sort of thing you get when dealing with an independent third party (a government official pays the private contractor a little bonus).
Historically, there has been a lot of elections fraud; that doesn't mean every election is stolen, even if it looks like it might have been, but it sure as hell means you don't trust the board of elections, voting machine manufacturers, political parties, or anyone else to act in good faith. The same is true when a state wants to tax somebody on a property they value at a really high number and there is a dispute over whether it's actually a fair market assessment: show me why that's fair if you want me to believe it.
It's not one-way, either. Do you know what my tax assessment is? $1,000 on land, $2,000 on my house. The city is artificially lowering cost-of-living in my area by dishonestly assessing our property. Because of certain state laws, I'm actually able to go back and force the city to not charge me property tax for another few decades if they try to raise this, too--which is good, because plenty of my neighbors are too poor to afford sudden water bill and property tax hikes, and they have a defense against that sort of thing if the city tries to run them out.