This system, inherently and by design, has more debt than currency in circulation to pay that debt because interest (the "prime rate") is attached to money the moment it is created... Let's say the Fed creates ten billion dollars. The Fed gives the USA Government ten billion dollars. In exchange, the USA Government gives the Fed government bonds (a promise to pay back) worth $10,500,000,000 (the original ten billion plus the 5% interest). Now you have money in circulation. Except now you have a problem because there is only ten billion dollars in your entire economy
You don't understand the terms you are using.
First, the prime rate is the interbank lending rate, and not directly related to treasury bonds.
Second, you can't say "there's only 10 billion in the entire economy" as though that means something. Nobody (except for conspiracy nuts) measures an economy by the amount of available paper money! That's insane!
A simple exercise of your limited imagination would have revealed that, one, there's far more "money" than there is cash (about 8 times more if you count time deposits as money), two, the ability to work and to pay is not limited by the quantity of money. Do you have to amass $500,000 at once to pay off your mortgage? No! Wrong!
When your understanding of money is sourced from conspiracy nuts, it's only expected that you will be grossly uninformed.
The APT tax would have to define a transaction. What is a transaction? Say you buy a Eurodollar contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. This is a futures contract on a $1 million time deposit. That contract has a face value of $1 million, but most traders only put up about $1200 on margin for it. If this contract is a "transaction", then each trader would have to pay $6000 per contract. The exchange charges, I believe, about $1.
Essentially, money will flee to safe places for it to be exchanged. Companies will become enormous monoliths to keep all money inside. People will be paid with more perks and less wages. Nobody would trade futures (which is a bad thing). And so on.
Worst of all, finance will cease to be a world of many institutions trading constantly (the Eurodollar being just one example of many), and become a world of large monoliths trading secretly. The flow of money would stagnate. CDSs and CMOs were stagnant contracts traded by large companies secretly, and now we're in a depression because of it.
My mother ran into someone with the same first name, last name, middle name, suffix, and prefix. It even turned out that we were born in the same hospital, within one month of each other, to the same surrogate mother, and we have the same identical mysterious tatoos that represent a coded map on the smalls of our backs!
Okay, I'll bite. Money conspiracy theories need to be put to rest.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar.
This is a non-issue. It's something maybe a 5 year old would find interesting.
As for a dollar, it's a unit of United States legal tender.
Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
* Why is it the United States Government creates money
But it doesn't.
on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free?
The Treasury is part of the U.S. government, and it doesn't do that. Only the Federal Reserve can currently issue currency.
Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced?
No.
Why or why not?
Because that would be a terrible idea.
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
It doesn't need to come from anywhere. A dollar can pay its own interest. You're aware that money can circulate back and forth? That one dollar need only bounce back and forth 2-3 times to pay off a 30 year treasury?
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
This whole "the human race is incapable of doing two things at once" BS never ceases to amaze me. How do you even get out of bed in the morning? Make coffee... take a crap... which to do first? Gaah! I'm paralyzed! Which is the most important fish to fry?
There are happy happy customers. There are customers that know they are are happy. There are unhappy happy customers. That is to say, there are customers that do not know they are happy. But there also unhappy unhappy customers. There are customers who do not know they are unhappy.
Have you ever tried to read Marx's "Paris Commune"?
Marx had a lot of problems with the next generation of Communists while he was alive--but don't think for a second that Marx was opposed to brutality, oppression, and murder. Far from it. Force, for Marx, was a tool to satisfy the proletarian revolution. No surprise that they turned out to be selfish and bad people. Marxism itself is selfish and bad.
Furthermore, Marx's economics are about as silly to the economist as squaring the circle is to a mathematician.
The thing's hollow--it goes on forever--and
on
The Smell of Space
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Right, I'm a troll for calling income redistribution "stealing". Armed Robbery is more like it.
Tell me, what do you call taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of force, or threat of force?
The BIGGEST problem with Obama's stated goal of income redistribution is that it creates a sense of entitlement, the poor are ENTITLED to money, just because they don't have any.
Please tell me, where am I wrong? Don't just mod me "troll", tell me, what right anyone has to take from anyone else, just because they want something?
Tyranny of the mob isn't an excuse!
I call it being part of a society.
You're a fool to think it doesn't affect you, anyway. The welfare of the poor is more critical to society's stability then the luxury of the rich. We can get along fine if nobody owned New York Penthouses, but I'd like to see a functioning state where education, health, food and shelter are scarce resources.
Actually, Marxism talks about 'socially necessary labor-time' to explain how value corresponds to utility. But he's still doing it wrong.
The market creates value out of nothing via allocation. Say that person X likes fruit juice and Y likes soda. By allowing them to buy what they want, more value is created for these people, even though they will both end up drinking the same amount of stuff no matter how it's allocated.
As recently as the U.S. Civil War, the idea of wiping out enemy troops and all their resources was endorsed by W.T. Sherman (the idea's originator), Grant, and Lincoln. In world war 2, entire cities--hundreds of thousands of people at once--destroyed, firebombed, nuked. Vietnam had nothing on it.
In medieval times pillaging, massacre and total depopulation was a standard part of war. A few places temporarily lifted the traditional (non-scriptural) Christian ban on polygamy, due to want of men.
Before that it was common to destroy civilizations and take the survivors as slaves, if they were lucky. Muhammad had the radical idea that innocents should be enslaved rather than killed, and treated nice (relatively).
The more civilization, the more technology, the more ability we have to target only the belligerents, which is what civilized warfare ought to do.
Looks like someone wasn't paying attention in Econ 101. The way market works is that people sell at exactly the price they feel "is worth it". Buying in bulk is cheaper because it is ECONOMICALLY CHEAPER. Selling individual items requires that every item be stocked, tagged, picked up by a customer, scanned and ringed up at the register, and paid for in usually small transactions. Buying N items in bulk means N-1 transactions, N-1 time saved at the cashier's, a good deal less time spent stocking, less risk per item, etc. You don't throw out the middleman, but you throw out a ton of "middleman-age".
Slashdot Mirror
This system, inherently and by design, has more debt than currency in circulation to pay that debt because interest (the "prime rate") is attached to money the moment it is created...
Let's say the Fed creates ten billion dollars. The Fed gives the USA Government ten billion dollars. In exchange, the USA Government gives the Fed government bonds (a promise to pay back) worth $10,500,000,000 (the original ten billion plus the 5% interest). Now you have money in circulation. Except now you have a problem because there is only ten billion dollars in your entire economy
You don't understand the terms you are using.
First, the prime rate is the interbank lending rate, and not directly related to treasury bonds.
Second, you can't say "there's only 10 billion in the entire economy" as though that means something. Nobody (except for conspiracy nuts) measures an economy by the amount of available paper money! That's insane!
A simple exercise of your limited imagination would have revealed that, one, there's far more "money" than there is cash (about 8 times more if you count time deposits as money), two, the ability to work and to pay is not limited by the quantity of money. Do you have to amass $500,000 at once to pay off your mortgage? No! Wrong!
When your understanding of money is sourced from conspiracy nuts, it's only expected that you will be grossly uninformed.
Honestly, wow, a kid can access porn, that isn't damaging, they are going to find out what a naked person looks like eventually.
This is easily solved. Just block every site except Slashdot.
Unintended consequences is absolutely correct.
The APT tax would have to define a transaction. What is a transaction? Say you buy a Eurodollar contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. This is a futures contract on a $1 million time deposit. That contract has a face value of $1 million, but most traders only put up about $1200 on margin for it. If this contract is a "transaction", then each trader would have to pay $6000 per contract. The exchange charges, I believe, about $1.
Essentially, money will flee to safe places for it to be exchanged. Companies will become enormous monoliths to keep all money inside. People will be paid with more perks and less wages. Nobody would trade futures (which is a bad thing). And so on.
Worst of all, finance will cease to be a world of many institutions trading constantly (the Eurodollar being just one example of many), and become a world of large monoliths trading secretly. The flow of money would stagnate. CDSs and CMOs were stagnant contracts traded by large companies secretly, and now we're in a depression because of it.
My mother ran into someone with the same first name, last name, middle name, suffix, and prefix. It even turned out that we were born in the same hospital, within one month of each other, to the same surrogate mother, and we have the same identical mysterious tatoos that represent a coded map on the smalls of our backs!
Okay, I'll bite. Money conspiracy theories need to be put to rest.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar.
This is a non-issue. It's something maybe a 5 year old would find interesting.
As for a dollar, it's a unit of United States legal tender.
Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
* Why is it the United States Government creates money
But it doesn't.
on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free?
The Treasury is part of the U.S. government, and it doesn't do that. Only the Federal Reserve can currently issue currency.
Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced?
No.
Why or why not?
Because that would be a terrible idea.
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
It doesn't need to come from anywhere. A dollar can pay its own interest. You're aware that money can circulate back and forth? That one dollar need only bounce back and forth 2-3 times to pay off a 30 year treasury?
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
I wouldn't want stupid questions, either.
If only we can find a mad scientist who can reanimate dead jokes.
We're talking about evolving rocks, not revolving rocks.
This whole "the human race is incapable of doing two things at once" BS never ceases to amaze me. How do you even get out of bed in the morning? Make coffee... take a crap... which to do first? Gaah! I'm paralyzed! Which is the most important fish to fry?
You mean you can do both at once?
There are happy happy customers. There are customers that know they are are happy. There are unhappy happy customers. That is to say, there are customers that do not know they are happy. But there also unhappy unhappy customers. There are customers who do not know they are unhappy.
-Donald Rumsfeld
Can you post the URL?
Have you ever tried to read Marx's "Paris Commune"?
Marx had a lot of problems with the next generation of Communists while he was alive--but don't think for a second that Marx was opposed to brutality, oppression, and murder. Far from it. Force, for Marx, was a tool to satisfy the proletarian revolution. No surprise that they turned out to be selfish and bad people. Marxism itself is selfish and bad.
Furthermore, Marx's economics are about as silly to the economist as squaring the circle is to a mathematician.
it's full of smells!
Right, I'm a troll for calling income redistribution "stealing". Armed Robbery is more like it.
Tell me, what do you call taking what doesn't belong to you, under the guise of force, or threat of force?
The BIGGEST problem with Obama's stated goal of income redistribution is that it creates a sense of entitlement, the poor are ENTITLED to money, just because they don't have any.
Please tell me, where am I wrong? Don't just mod me "troll", tell me, what right anyone has to take from anyone else, just because they want something?
Tyranny of the mob isn't an excuse!
I call it being part of a society.
You're a fool to think it doesn't affect you, anyway. The welfare of the poor is more critical to society's stability then the luxury of the rich. We can get along fine if nobody owned New York Penthouses, but I'd like to see a functioning state where education, health, food and shelter are scarce resources.
Begone, troll.
Actually, Marxism talks about 'socially necessary labor-time' to explain how value corresponds to utility. But he's still doing it wrong.
The market creates value out of nothing via allocation. Say that person X likes fruit juice and Y likes soda. By allowing them to buy what they want, more value is created for these people, even though they will both end up drinking the same amount of stuff no matter how it's allocated.
As recently as the U.S. Civil War, the idea of wiping out enemy troops and all their resources was endorsed by W.T. Sherman (the idea's originator), Grant, and Lincoln. In world war 2, entire cities--hundreds of thousands of people at once--destroyed, firebombed, nuked. Vietnam had nothing on it.
In medieval times pillaging, massacre and total depopulation was a standard part of war. A few places temporarily lifted the traditional (non-scriptural) Christian ban on polygamy, due to want of men.
Before that it was common to destroy civilizations and take the survivors as slaves, if they were lucky. Muhammad had the radical idea that innocents should be enslaved rather than killed, and treated nice (relatively).
The more civilization, the more technology, the more ability we have to target only the belligerents, which is what civilized warfare ought to do.
Not insightful. Orwell wasn't talking about correct grammar. He was talking about using English in non-weaselly ways.
If he's using a good one, most likely 1/1.7 or 10/17.
The Rod of Aesclepius comes from Moses. Right...
Looks like someone wasn't paying attention in Econ 101. The way market works is that people sell at exactly the price they feel "is worth it". Buying in bulk is cheaper because it is ECONOMICALLY CHEAPER. Selling individual items requires that every item be stocked, tagged, picked up by a customer, scanned and ringed up at the register, and paid for in usually small transactions. Buying N items in bulk means N-1 transactions, N-1 time saved at the cashier's, a good deal less time spent stocking, less risk per item, etc. You don't throw out the middleman, but you throw out a ton of "middleman-age".
Harry Potter might have been "marketed" to children, but it certainly wasn't written for them. Just ask the author.
I'll relate to her.
Star fox was from 1993, and it used polygons in full 3-d space with textures.
Please, tell us which of the recent leaks have compromised our national security without significantly advancing the cause of freedom.
If you said "the Plame Scandal", you're absolutely correct.
But it wasn't the mythical liberal press responsible for that, it was the stooges of "Chimpy McBush Hitler". Fool.
It hasn't been done because it's not funny.
You mean their teenage daughters will start thinking about having sex with women?
Wait a minute, what's wrong with that?