Meanwhile the artificially depressed (compared to borrowing only savings) interest rates continue the diversion of "stuff" from where it can build infrastructure to make a future profit and into either projects that can't be finished or won't have customers when they're done or immediate consumption. This turns a recession into a depression. It's exactly what happened to create the Great Depression, but the government is doing it more this time around and with no safety net from a gold standard - so the US could end up more like Weimar Germany than the US of the '30s.
[citation needed]. If you ask Milton Friedman he'd say the gold standard caused the Great Depression. Tying peoples' perceptions of worth to the market for chunks of shiny metal is an economically destructive thing to do. Since the Federal Reserve started maintaining a stable currency, we haven't had ANY major depressions (the current one being vastly overrated), nor any sort of inflation worth talking about.
Actually, I've never heard your theory before, so I'll assume you made it up. By the way, selling bonds RAISES cash, so your long ramble isn't even salient, and the GP is dead wrong. If Microsoft was expecting inflation, they'd be getting rid of cash ASAP.
-1 wrong. Stocks are not a short term investment and never have been.
Any individual buying stock as a short term investment is wrong, and might lose all his money (see the hi-tech bubble). But any corporation buying stock as a short-term investment is committing accounting fraud, and might result in corporate officers being sent to jail.
No, any bond broker should carry them. E*Trade has some for offer right now. And you don't need "many thousands". You do need one thousand, though, as bonds are typically sold with a face value of $1000.
"In 2001, Rowling purchased a luxurious nineteenth-century estate house, Killiechassie House, on the banks of the River Tay, near Aberfeldy, in Perth and Kinross, Scotland.[94] Rowling also owns a home in Merchiston, Edinburgh, and a £4.5 million ($9 million) Georgian house in Kensington, West London,[95] on a street with 24-hour security.[96]"
"In addition, the 2008 Sunday Times Rich List named Rowling the 144th richest person in Britain.[5]"
Prior to the 14th amendment, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights pertained to states, not individuals. It was only enforceable against Congress--states could do as they willed. See:
"in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
The framers knew their "philosophical shit". They knew that societies have the desire and will to regulate themselves, and that the point was that people have an interest in their own government. The point of the Constitution was to prevent one region of America from exerting power over another.
It's nice that you're opinionated, but that doesn't give you the justification to talk so forcefully when you are clearly in ignorance of the issues at hand.
Wikipeida: Naperville is about 35 square miles, which is pretty big, but hardly 'gigantic'. In size it falls behind Joliet, Aurora, Rockford, and of course Chicago itself, which is about 230 square miles of skyscrapers, slums and sprawl.
The "bloody" graphs are "bloody" exponential because the value of money declines exponentially. For the past three decades or so this has been done purposefully (called "inflation targeting").
If the value of money didn't decline exponentially, then there would be an upper limit to the amount of debt, and that upper limit would not be trillions of dollars, since $20 would still be a year's salary like it was before the Revolution...
In GP's "model", which is actually how the world works and not a model at all, the money almost certainly comes from someone else's debt. Money is fungible. Since you're economically clueless, look up "fungible".
Lenders set the interest rate to be higher than monetary expansion. If they didn't do this, they'd lose real value.
Money is credit. If the parent was correct, the money supply would be expanding at around a typical debt interest rate (say 5%). Yet there are many stable economies where this has not been the case for a long while--every economy that ever used gold, for instance. Moneylenders didn't conjure gold into existence by setting interest rates.
The answer is even simpler than that. Amazingly enough, you can pay off debt without increasing the supply in credit. Do Slashdot mods really think you have to magic a dollar bill (or, pre fiat money, a gold coin) out of thin air to pay interest? That interest may not be paid from existing credit or debt? And once it gets paid, the token of exchange disappears forever? Stupid!
How many people who would be called capitalists profit without exchanging time and labor for money? Does John Stumpf kick back and smoke pot all day? Does John Thain spend his time playing volleyball at the beach? He may have gotten (stolen) more money than he deserves, but let's not pretend that he does no "work". Those capitalists got where they are by exchanging their time and labor for money, just like the rest of us.
Looks like you didn't pay attention to the grandparent post. Nobody's making you live in a bad neighboorhood, or buy bad food when real food is actually cheaper.
Don't confuse real food with canned, processed garbage. Somehow, humanity has managed to eat healthy with much less money before the advent of McDonalds. Really, if you somehow think McDonalds can prepare food cheaper than you make yourself, you fail Economics 101.
Don't rent. This will cost you money.
Don't go without insurance. This will cost you money.
Your financial ineptitude is not the grandparent's fault.
That's not the way either. If someone invented a machine to turn dust into bread, food would become super cheap, but we wouldn't be much better off.
The pre-marginalists like Marx and Smith thought the best way to measure value was labor. Modern economists use a wonkish formula comparing changes in the prices of many things. Look up Fischer Price Index for more information.
Anyway, your point is correct--Gold is even more illusory than Fed money. At least the latter has a stable supply and demand equilibrium. The pre-Fed history of money was filled with inflation spikes and enormous deflationary depressions.
Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, you do not have the right to go out in public making obscene gestures at other people. Generally, this falls under "disturbing the peace" and it is illegal in every state. As well it should be--I don't want it to be legal to act obscenely towards others in public. The crazy people and random bums in my home city of Chicago are already hard to deal with.
The police generally will not enforce these laws unless the offense is serious. But it is still illegal.
Uh? The Wall of Sound was used, without their apparent consent, on their very last album which is dwarfed by the shadow of Abbey Road.
Wikipedia on Get Back:
The album is presented in a form which is purported to be closer to The Beatles' original artistic vision: to "get back" to the rock 'n' roll sound of their early years[1] rather than the orchestral overdubs and embellishments which were added by Phil Spector in the production of the final Let It Be album. Paul McCartney in particular was always dissatisfied with the "Wall of Sound" production techniques that had been employed on the Phil Spector remixes, especially for his song "The Long and Winding Road," which he believed was ruined by the process.[1] George Harrison gave his approval for the...Naked project before he died.[2] McCartney's attitude contrasted with Lennon's from over two decades earlier. In his September 1980 Playboy interview, Lennon had defended Spector's work, saying "He was given the shittiest load of badly-recorded shit with a lousy feeling to it ever, and he made something of it."
In other words, didn't come from any Beatle.
(Side note: the combination of misinformation, lies, and musical ignorance in this thread makes me want to cry. I majored in composition, and am extensively familiar with the Beatles, music history, and classical music, and it seems that half the "+5 Insightful" comments here are not only dead wrong but arrogant ranting trash... Your random musical tastes do not constitute music-historical inquiry, sorry, guys.)
thing is, there's no scarcity any more, or, I should rather say, the scarcity is not in the resources themselves, but rather on the sharing of the token called money used to obtain goods and services.
Okey-dokey. So if we start paying for everything with gold, or with chickens, or with sexual favors, resources will suddenly become abundant?
That's a nice sentiment. No, actually, it's a hateful and greedy sentiment.
How about this: if someone wants to do the job more, they can do it. It's not like this 'destruction of society' will make your life as bad as the life of someone overseas who needs the job more than you!
Actually, Karl Marx hated democracy. He feared the greatest threat to the communist revolution was socialist democracy, which would forever lock the proletariat into an inferior system where they are placated by votes.
What Karl Marx promoted wasn't democracy, it was fantasy fairy-land government where everyone is happy and agreeable and gets a pony. The sort of society that only a madman can believe in. This sociopathic hatred and denial of actual human nature led to the greatest crimes against humanity that history has ever known.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile the artificially depressed (compared to borrowing only savings) interest rates continue the diversion of "stuff" from where it can build infrastructure to make a future profit and into either projects that can't be finished or won't have customers when they're done or immediate consumption. This turns a recession into a depression. It's exactly what happened to create the Great Depression, but the government is doing it more this time around and with no safety net from a gold standard - so the US could end up more like Weimar Germany than the US of the '30s.
[citation needed]. If you ask Milton Friedman he'd say the gold standard caused the Great Depression. Tying peoples' perceptions of worth to the market for chunks of shiny metal is an economically destructive thing to do. Since the Federal Reserve started maintaining a stable currency, we haven't had ANY major depressions (the current one being vastly overrated), nor any sort of inflation worth talking about.
Actually, I've never heard your theory before, so I'll assume you made it up. By the way, selling bonds RAISES cash, so your long ramble isn't even salient, and the GP is dead wrong. If Microsoft was expecting inflation, they'd be getting rid of cash ASAP.
-1 wrong. Stocks are not a short term investment and never have been.
Any individual buying stock as a short term investment is wrong, and might lose all his money (see the hi-tech bubble). But any corporation buying stock as a short-term investment is committing accounting fraud, and might result in corporate officers being sent to jail.
No, any bond broker should carry them. E*Trade has some for offer right now. And you don't need "many thousands". You do need one thousand, though, as bonds are typically sold with a face value of $1000.
[citation needed]
Actually, it should be (annoyed grunt)
GP is educated stupid. GP does not recognize Universal Truth of 4-bullet point simultaneous APK posting.
"In 2001, Rowling purchased a luxurious nineteenth-century estate house, Killiechassie House, on the banks of the River Tay, near Aberfeldy, in Perth and Kinross, Scotland.[94] Rowling also owns a home in Merchiston, Edinburgh, and a £4.5 million ($9 million) Georgian house in Kensington, West London,[95] on a street with 24-hour security.[96]"
"In addition, the 2008 Sunday Times Rich List named Rowling the 144th richest person in Britain.[5]"
"In March 2008, Rowling revealed in interview that she had returned to writing in Edinburgh cafés"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jk_rowling#Personal_life
Prior to the 14th amendment, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights pertained to states, not individuals. It was only enforceable against Congress--states could do as they willed. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
"in 1833 the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal, but not any State, government. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1890s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments."
The framers knew their "philosophical shit". They knew that societies have the desire and will to regulate themselves, and that the point was that people have an interest in their own government. The point of the Constitution was to prevent one region of America from exerting power over another.
It's nice that you're opinionated, but that doesn't give you the justification to talk so forcefully when you are clearly in ignorance of the issues at hand.
Wikipeida: Naperville is about 35 square miles, which is pretty big, but hardly 'gigantic'. In size it falls behind Joliet, Aurora, Rockford, and of course Chicago itself, which is about 230 square miles of skyscrapers, slums and sprawl.
The "bloody" graphs are "bloody" exponential because the value of money declines exponentially. For the past three decades or so this has been done purposefully (called "inflation targeting").
If the value of money didn't decline exponentially, then there would be an upper limit to the amount of debt, and that upper limit would not be trillions of dollars, since $20 would still be a year's salary like it was before the Revolution...
In GP's "model", which is actually how the world works and not a model at all, the money almost certainly comes from someone else's debt. Money is fungible. Since you're economically clueless, look up "fungible".
Who modded this insightful?
Lenders set the interest rate to be higher than monetary expansion. If they didn't do this, they'd lose real value.
Money is credit. If the parent was correct, the money supply would be expanding at around a typical debt interest rate (say 5%). Yet there are many stable economies where this has not been the case for a long while--every economy that ever used gold, for instance. Moneylenders didn't conjure gold into existence by setting interest rates.
The answer is even simpler than that. Amazingly enough, you can pay off debt without increasing the supply in credit. Do Slashdot mods really think you have to magic a dollar bill (or, pre fiat money, a gold coin) out of thin air to pay interest? That interest may not be paid from existing credit or debt? And once it gets paid, the token of exchange disappears forever? Stupid!
A horde of monkeys that peck at the keyboard...
Slashdot is run by a clan of nomad monkey chickens! I knew it!
How many people who would be called capitalists profit without exchanging time and labor for money? Does John Stumpf kick back and smoke pot all day? Does John Thain spend his time playing volleyball at the beach? He may have gotten (stolen) more money than he deserves, but let's not pretend that he does no "work". Those capitalists got where they are by exchanging their time and labor for money, just like the rest of us.
Looks like you didn't pay attention to the grandparent post. Nobody's making you live in a bad neighboorhood, or buy bad food when real food is actually cheaper.
Don't confuse real food with canned, processed garbage. Somehow, humanity has managed to eat healthy with much less money before the advent of McDonalds. Really, if you somehow think McDonalds can prepare food cheaper than you make yourself, you fail Economics 101.
Don't rent. This will cost you money.
Don't go without insurance. This will cost you money.
Your financial ineptitude is not the grandparent's fault.
They have a bunch of printing presses? In Area 51?
What do they do, shower Nevada with press releases? Who modded this interesting?
Hello.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_v._BnetD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(bot)
Good day to you.
That's not the way either. If someone invented a machine to turn dust into bread, food would become super cheap, but we wouldn't be much better off.
The pre-marginalists like Marx and Smith thought the best way to measure value was labor. Modern economists use a wonkish formula comparing changes in the prices of many things. Look up Fischer Price Index for more information.
Anyway, your point is correct--Gold is even more illusory than Fed money. At least the latter has a stable supply and demand equilibrium. The pre-Fed history of money was filled with inflation spikes and enormous deflationary depressions.
Contrary to popular Slashdot belief, you do not have the right to go out in public making obscene gestures at other people. Generally, this falls under "disturbing the peace" and it is illegal in every state. As well it should be--I don't want it to be legal to act obscenely towards others in public. The crazy people and random bums in my home city of Chicago are already hard to deal with.
The police generally will not enforce these laws unless the offense is serious. But it is still illegal.
Judging other people's health isn't superficial. Health is the most important thing a human being can have.
Us men are lucky that good looks correlate with good health. Imagine being a woman where obtaining a model's body requires starvation and atrophy.
Solution: Don't live on 90k/yr in San Francisco.
Uh? The Wall of Sound was used, without their apparent consent, on their very last album which is dwarfed by the shadow of Abbey Road.
Wikipedia on Get Back:
The album is presented in a form which is purported to be closer to The Beatles' original artistic vision: to "get back" to the rock 'n' roll sound of their early years[1] rather than the orchestral overdubs and embellishments which were added by Phil Spector in the production of the final Let It Be album. Paul McCartney in particular was always dissatisfied with the "Wall of Sound" production techniques that had been employed on the Phil Spector remixes, especially for his song "The Long and Winding Road," which he believed was ruined by the process.[1] George Harrison gave his approval for the ...Naked project before he died.[2] McCartney's attitude contrasted with Lennon's from over two decades earlier. In his September 1980 Playboy interview, Lennon had defended Spector's work, saying "He was given the shittiest load of badly-recorded shit with a lousy feeling to it ever, and he made something of it."
In other words, didn't come from any Beatle.
(Side note: the combination of misinformation, lies, and musical ignorance in this thread makes me want to cry. I majored in composition, and am extensively familiar with the Beatles, music history, and classical music, and it seems that half the "+5 Insightful" comments here are not only dead wrong but arrogant ranting trash... Your random musical tastes do not constitute music-historical inquiry, sorry, guys.)
That's because their ultimate goal is not money but our precious bodily fluids.
thing is, there's no scarcity any more, or, I should rather say, the scarcity is not in the resources themselves, but rather on the sharing of the token called money used to obtain goods and services.
Okey-dokey. So if we start paying for everything with gold, or with chickens, or with sexual favors, resources will suddenly become abundant?
That's a nice sentiment. No, actually, it's a hateful and greedy sentiment.
How about this: if someone wants to do the job more, they can do it. It's not like this 'destruction of society' will make your life as bad as the life of someone overseas who needs the job more than you!
Actually, Karl Marx hated democracy. He feared the greatest threat to the communist revolution was socialist democracy, which would forever lock the proletariat into an inferior system where they are placated by votes.
What Karl Marx promoted wasn't democracy, it was fantasy fairy-land government where everyone is happy and agreeable and gets a pony. The sort of society that only a madman can believe in. This sociopathic hatred and denial of actual human nature led to the greatest crimes against humanity that history has ever known.