I'm not saying any of these goals are wrong, but maybe Russians just believe that this tourism experiment is more important/beneficial than cultivating bean sprouts.
What do you think they're going to do with the bean sprouts? It'll be the most expensive salad those tourists have ever had.
Um, I know they create money that way. But the amount of money created is the same as the amount of debt created, not less. So the question is where the initial money comes from... which I think is the government printing bills or the electronic equivalent, and I don't think these involve debt. They certainly don't involve more debt than the amount of money produced.
Then what we have is not a misunderstanding of the concepts involved but an unclear explanation on my part. I (and I assume causality, who you originally replied to) was referring to the printed money as "money" or X and the checkbook money as "debt" or Y. So debt will be only a portion of the total money supply but is always much larger than the supply of printed money. In fact, just the interest on Y can be larger than X. I assume that this is what causality was referring to as it means we have a mathematical requirement of a constantly expanding money supply to repay the debt. This can either be in proportion to the goods and services produced, requiring an infinitely expanding use of resources, or through price inflation.
But if everyone defaulted on all their loans, you're saying we'd end up with a negative money supply, rather than just a very small positive one?
No:
(X+Y)-Y=X
even if Y>X
For clarification on this check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.
If the Fed confirms that financial institutions create money through loans can I stop having this debate with people over whether this is actually so? Here is the frightening reality: most people in our society are trading their time and services for something they have no clue as to the origin or real value - dollars. This is a site that represents a higher level of education than most and look at the threads on this topic, you will find an appalling level of ignorance regarding a good we spend a great deal of effort obtaining.
The multiplier also has a cap which is dependent on the reserve ratio, but it rarely comes into play, as it is the demand of the economy that dictates everything, and not the other way around.
Control of interest rates (the price of loans) is used to influence demand up or down as seen fit by the central banks. That's the point of them and openly acknowledged so I don't see how anyone could dispute this.
But they aren't creating money out of nothing. They are lending out the same money you deposited.
If they are lending out my money, why doesn't my available balance go down when someone takes out a loan? Clearly it is not the same money, it can not simultaneously be available to me and the borrower. Think about it, many people have a mortgage on their house, very few people have enough savings to loan enough to buy a house. If they are just loaning out deposits then for every person who takes out a $250,000 loan for their house you need other people with net savings (savings - loans) of $250,000. Do you really think that for every person with a $250,000 loan there are 10 with no debt and $25,000 in savings? Where are they?
What about loan defaults causing deflation, how is that? If the loan money was existing money none of it would disappear on default (no deflation), the borrower would be bankrupt, the lender would lose money but the money itself would still be in circulation. Don't take my word for it though, check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.
If my reading habits are any indication of what's to come. Most people aren't spending lengthy periods away from home, therefore the ability to store 1000's of books and carry them with you is not of interest. Novels tend to be read from cover to cover, digital formats offer no advantage for this pattern of reading and require power. Some other disadvantages of digital readers will be overcome in time, but books are durable. If I have a book in a bag, I can drop that bag on the floor without concern, digital readers not so. I don't want to spend my time guarding another device from breakage.
I'm hardly a technophobe but I don't even have a digital book reader. Maybe I will some time, but for me digital books have one main advantage - searchable text. Hardly relevant to novels, more to reference books and technical manuals. I have downloaded books I would probably not otherwise have bought, so price is an advantage, but these are all public domain (mostly on gutenberg.org) or released online by the author and are books I read for information. For enjoyment, forget it, I want to be on the couch reading, and that's where digital offers no advantage. If the types of books I want in electronic format are sold that way by the author I'll happily pay, although DRM is a deal killer. If it's reading for enjoyment rather than information, you won't get a sale from me without a physical book, I won't even bother to read it if you offer it for free in electronic format only.
If a significant portion of your fans want digital format, make sure any contracts you have with publishers reflect the amount of help you need doing that.
There are real things in the economy that are unsustainable. Having the debt levels rise faster than the income levels would be one such thing. Having the lower and middle class owning a lesser and lesser percentage of the wealth would be another.
Fractional reserve banking by definition causes debt levels to rise faster than income levels since it is ultimately income which provides the reserve which is only a fraction of the lending. Allowing banks to create chequebook money out of nothing and lend it out at usury causes a transfer of wealth to them from the lower and middle classes. The problems you cite are intrinsic to FRB. They are features, not bugs, remember the banks came up with this fraudulent system to benefit themselves, not their customers.
Finally, you need regulators and law makers who generally aren't corrupt to ensure that the FRB system isn't abused.
Ok, let's implement fractional reserve banking AFTER you find out how to ensure a constant supply of regulators and law makers who generally aren't corrupt.
Continually devaluing the currency results in the collapse of empires and a return to commodity money. If you think the current system is sustainable then your study of the history of it is very limited. As far back as the greek and roman empires governments have devalued currencies. It hasn't worked out well yet and it's not about to start. You've been hoodwinked.
Since you got a little more specific instead of just repeating your mantra that I have no clue, it has become evident that you don't understand what I was proposing. If you think I was merely proposing an increase in reserve requirements you've got me all wrong. A fraudulent practice will not become workable if we just do it a little less extravagantly. Ending the practice of fractional reserve lending would abolish our banking system as it currently exists. Naturally that would be a difficult adjustment. I'm not suggesting we tweak the system I'm suggesting that we purge it of fraud. That's a major overhaul.
It isn't a matter of me being upset, do the math. What do you think the result of an exponentially inflated currency will be? Our banking system is very time limited by it's nature. I doubt there will be the political will to change it until it collapses of it's own accord, but it is possible to take actions to protect yourself from what is coming. If you follow the counsel of those who continually proclaim their control of the system before crashing it you are unlikely to but that's up to you.
Great. But you actually have no clue how all of what you just said would actually affect the world or the economy. You don't have any clue because you haven't done the research, you haven't analyzed the relevant data, all you know is that it seems to make sense with the little bit of information you do have. Go do the research, figure out what might happen, and then you might have a point. For now you don't.
You make claims about my knowledge, but your revered economists have proven themselves no better. Which of them predicted the financial collapse? You are following the lead of people of proven incompetence. Why do you think that's a good idea just because they took years of study to reach the level of incompetence that enabled them to destroy the wealth of millions of people?
No amount of complexity in a system will make fraud a widescale viable means of producing wealth. If you take years to think it is, you aren't studying you're being indoctrinated. What possible reason could you have for favouring the opinion of those who crashed the system over those who tried to prevent it because they understood?
Think about the financial crash: all the houses still existed, all the gold and silver still existed, all the factories still existed, all the roads, bridges, farms, ships, warehouses were all still there. Everything that constitutes real, tangible wealth. Even the printed currency didn't vanish. What disappeared? You and I both know the answer, but for some reason we have very different responses. The people who told you it was all under control before the tech bubble burst, then told you it was all under control before the real estate bubble burst are telling you it is all ok again. Does it make you feel better?
The constant pissing match between GPL and BSD advocates is a bit silly IMO. It seems to me (not being a programmer but being a user of BSD and GPL licensed software) that each licence is appropriate for difference circumstances, according to the desires of the author.
It's like arguing that knives are superior to forks, so I only eat with knives! Licenses are a tool, each suitable for it's purpose.
I don't agree that the GPL "childishly punishes" anyone, nor that it is viral. It is copyright that provides the "virality" (virusness?), not the GPL, and even BSD has the requirement of attribution making it just as viral (through copyright) though with less onerous conditions.
You clearly don't like the current system, but in any system money comes into the supply 'magically,' it's just a matter of who is doing it.
I'd say that mining operations have significantly more to do with engineering than magic. In any case, I'm not fixating on gold, it's fractional reserve lending I primarily object to as I regard it as legalised fraud. So far as we have an fiat currency rather than commodity currency I would like the creation of that currency to be solely the privilege and responsibility of the government rather than banks. Banks could lend out money as issued by the government only, not create new money through loans as is now the case. This is what causes deflation as a result of credit defaults.
Also, I don't think you understand: the increasing supply of gold was THE major cause of inflation.
There is a physical limitation on that inflation though without fractional reserve lending. This was been banking practice during the inflation you refer to. Essentially IMO currency should not cease to exist if a loan is not repaid.
Money is a difficult and dynamic thing, with its own demand and supply curve. Getting it right is not easy.
True, but disconnecting money from tangible reality seems to me to have very negative consequences, even though reality has it's own painful aspects. Given fiat currency, making the supply of it producible from nothing by the people who profit by doing so seems sure to result in ever expanding currency supply, as we have now.
Ron Paul certainly has done nothing to show that he knows better than everyone else.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr091003.htm
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. - Ron Paul September 10, 2003
Because they've done the study.
The study that made them incapable of predicting the crash or understanding the causes? Yeah, I'll get right on that.
Because now you're just looking like an idiot.
Maybe so, but I'm an idiot whose wealth didn't get wiped out. It grieves me to see so many otherwise intelligent people following the expertise of the very people who have just screwed them over. Maybe they should become idiots. If I'm an idiot, at least I'm a lucky idiot.
So if the majority of economists feel this way, why should normal people who don't have time to study the issues in the depth required agree with you over them?
Something to do with the majority of economists not predicting the GFC and the normal people being impoverished by that.
Why should I revere the amount of study they did in order to become incompetent?
If public education is so goddamned bad, then why has it worked so bloody well for other industrialized nations?
I tend towards libertarianism but maybe I'm not a "True Libertarian". I'll try to explain my view, but I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not against all government involvement in education or commerce. In Australia, the contents of food sold must be listed on the package in most circumstances. I know there are some who see that as regulation interfering with the free market. Personally I see it as enabling the free market because without that information the buyer cannot make an informed rational choice. Perhaps my opinion violates the "rules of libertarianism";) and maybe so in education as well.
Undoubtedly public education can produce a number of engineers, scientists and technicians. If that were the sole purpose of public education and the sole effect, it would indeed be hard to argue against. Unfortunately that is not the case. Public education has also been used as a method of social control. It's use for this purpose is clearly advocated in the communist manifesto. It's been a long time since I read Mien Kampf but it was certainly used by the Nazi's for this purpose also. I quote the communist manifesto:
"The
Communists have not invented the intervention of society in
education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
ruling class."
It is my contention that compulsory universal school systems will inevitably be used as a method of social control and oppression. Their benefit in producing those engineers, scientists and technicians needs to be considered in this light. What system should be implemented I leave open to debate, but I'd say that open licence textbooks is a huge step in the right direction. I can get that information even if I'm poor, nobody forces me to read that book or agree to it.
I've seen highly intelligent people here proclaim their dependence on corporations because they believe themselves to be incapable of living independently (ie as self-employed or running their own corporation). I do not accept that they are genetically incapable of that independence but that it has been induced by the method of education implemented on them (and their parents). The very thing that is supposed to benefit them (and does in some ways) has reduced them to slavish dependence on corporate executives and politicians that do not have their best interests at heart. That is my objection to universal public education, I do not see evidence that it is capable of producing any other result. Note my qualification of universal public education. Becoming an educated dependent employee is far preferable to living in grinding poverty and ignorance. I am not in favour of preventing the children of the poor from being helped up because of the ignorance, stupidity or bad luck of their parents.
He doesn't realize that during the start of the last century, gold itself was a major cause of inflation.
Try taking fractional reserve lending out of the picture and see how different that looks.
With a fiat system, there is potential for escaping the worst of the problems.
How's that working out for you? Nevertheless, IMO, the fractional reserve lending system is a bigger issue that whether the currency is commodity based or fiat based. So long as we have a fiat currency it ought to be issued by the government and not by banks. Lending money that doesn't exist should be prosecuted as fraud.
It's best for you personally to get out of debt and save money, borrowing only for productive purposes. If everyone did this in our current system it crashes the economy because our currency supply is produced by borrowing.
Nice idea, but Corps would just give money to employees, who would then "donate" it to the Congress criitter. I suspect this already happens...
Introducing the possibility that the employee pockets it for themselves or donates it to the opposing candidate.
Dissolve any corporation found to be making political donations (even if they are too big to fail) and mandatory lengthy prison term (10+ years) for individuals found guilty of participating.
Throw in a literacy requirement for voter registration while we're at it.
You clearly don't understand. Yes *property* is transferable, but rights are not. You don't lose your right to "own stuff" just because you sell all your possessions on ebay. That right to own property still exists, even if you have nothing. The right is inalienable.
Yes, look how wrong I got it in the post you replied to:
Ownership of a particular possession is transferable. Selling is a transfer. You don't give up your right to own possessions but you are transferring your ownership of a possession to another.
My bad, I see how badly I misunderstood now.
Now, seriously, if you can contract a right away even one time it is not inalienable. When you transfer or repudiate property, the property doesn't disappear, your right to it does. The story is about a particular piece of property. Autodesk is not trying to deprive him of the right to sell second hand goods in general, but in regard to a particular piece of property. The argument that selling second hand goods is an inalienable right is nonsensical if it can't then be applied to an individual product for which you can transfer or repudiate that right.
Ownership of self and one's possessions (i.e. stuff you acquired through your body's labor) is NOT transferable.
Ownership of a particular possession is transferable. Selling is a transfer. You don't give up your right to own possessions but you are transferring your ownership of a possession to another. Since you are able to abandon or give a possession away it is definitely alienable.
Why the hell would I want to do that? I would no more do that than I would sell myself into perpetual slavery.
For a benefit offered to you by the original seller. If they offered it to you at half price on the condition that you may use, destroy or return it but not resell that would certainly be a valid contract, since you had transferred your right to resell for a financial benefit.
There are some rights you cannot be understood to have repudiated or transferred by contract, such as self-defence. Even if you sign a contract saying you won't defend yourself a court will still uphold your right to do so. Second hand selling is not like that. You have a right to do it, but it's not an inalienable right. If you were to sign a contract "I give up my right so sell this product second hand in return for a lower purchase price" for example, you could be held to that. If every right was inalienable, contracts would be impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying any of these goals are wrong, but maybe Russians just believe that this tourism experiment is more important/beneficial than cultivating bean sprouts.
What do you think they're going to do with the bean sprouts? It'll be the most expensive salad those tourists have ever had.
Um, I know they create money that way. But the amount of money created is the same as the amount of debt created, not less. So the question is where the initial money comes from... which I think is the government printing bills or the electronic equivalent, and I don't think these involve debt. They certainly don't involve more debt than the amount of money produced.
Then what we have is not a misunderstanding of the concepts involved but an unclear explanation on my part. I (and I assume causality, who you originally replied to) was referring to the printed money as "money" or X and the checkbook money as "debt" or Y. So debt will be only a portion of the total money supply but is always much larger than the supply of printed money. In fact, just the interest on Y can be larger than X. I assume that this is what causality was referring to as it means we have a mathematical requirement of a constantly expanding money supply to repay the debt. This can either be in proportion to the goods and services produced, requiring an infinitely expanding use of resources, or through price inflation.
But if everyone defaulted on all their loans, you're saying we'd end up with a negative money supply, rather than just a very small positive one?
No:
(X+Y)-Y=X
even if Y>X
For clarification on this check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf
To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.
If the Fed confirms that financial institutions create money through loans can I stop having this debate with people over whether this is actually so? Here is the frightening reality: most people in our society are trading their time and services for something they have no clue as to the origin or real value - dollars. This is a site that represents a higher level of education than most and look at the threads on this topic, you will find an appalling level of ignorance regarding a good we spend a great deal of effort obtaining.
The multiplier also has a cap which is dependent on the reserve ratio, but it rarely comes into play, as it is the demand of the economy that dictates everything, and not the other way around.
Control of interest rates (the price of loans) is used to influence demand up or down as seen fit by the central banks. That's the point of them and openly acknowledged so I don't see how anyone could dispute this.
But they aren't creating money out of nothing. They are lending out the same money you deposited.
If they are lending out my money, why doesn't my available balance go down when someone takes out a loan? Clearly it is not the same money, it can not simultaneously be available to me and the borrower. Think about it, many people have a mortgage on their house, very few people have enough savings to loan enough to buy a house. If they are just loaning out deposits then for every person who takes out a $250,000 loan for their house you need other people with net savings (savings - loans) of $250,000. Do you really think that for every person with a $250,000 loan there are 10 with no debt and $25,000 in savings? Where are they?
What about loan defaults causing deflation, how is that? If the loan money was existing money none of it would disappear on default (no deflation), the borrower would be bankrupt, the lender would lose money but the money itself would still be in circulation. Don't take my word for it though, check what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has to say: http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedcentralbank/fedcentralbank.pdf
To achieve this goal, the Fed works to control money at its source by affecting the ability of financial institutions to "create" checkbook money through loans or investments.
If my reading habits are any indication of what's to come. Most people aren't spending lengthy periods away from home, therefore the ability to store 1000's of books and carry them with you is not of interest. Novels tend to be read from cover to cover, digital formats offer no advantage for this pattern of reading and require power. Some other disadvantages of digital readers will be overcome in time, but books are durable. If I have a book in a bag, I can drop that bag on the floor without concern, digital readers not so. I don't want to spend my time guarding another device from breakage.
I'm hardly a technophobe but I don't even have a digital book reader. Maybe I will some time, but for me digital books have one main advantage - searchable text. Hardly relevant to novels, more to reference books and technical manuals. I have downloaded books I would probably not otherwise have bought, so price is an advantage, but these are all public domain (mostly on gutenberg.org) or released online by the author and are books I read for information. For enjoyment, forget it, I want to be on the couch reading, and that's where digital offers no advantage. If the types of books I want in electronic format are sold that way by the author I'll happily pay, although DRM is a deal killer. If it's reading for enjoyment rather than information, you won't get a sale from me without a physical book, I won't even bother to read it if you offer it for free in electronic format only.
If a significant portion of your fans want digital format, make sure any contracts you have with publishers reflect the amount of help you need doing that.
The gold standard isn't actually different in this respect, because gold has very little nutritional value and sucks for building things.
It does, however, have good decorative value with substantial social and reproductive benefits for those who bestow such decorative pieces wisely.
for every X dollars in circulation there is always X+Y debt.
I thought it was actually that there was X-Y debt.
A common misconception. Debt is the basis for most of our currency supply, that's why loan defaults cause deflation. When a loan is made by the commercial bank (which keeps only a fraction of the central bank money as reserves), using the central bank money from the commercial bank's reserves, the money supply expands by the size of the loan.
There are real things in the economy that are unsustainable. Having the debt levels rise faster than the income levels would be one such thing. Having the lower and middle class owning a lesser and lesser percentage of the wealth would be another.
Fractional reserve banking by definition causes debt levels to rise faster than income levels since it is ultimately income which provides the reserve which is only a fraction of the lending. Allowing banks to create chequebook money out of nothing and lend it out at usury causes a transfer of wealth to them from the lower and middle classes. The problems you cite are intrinsic to FRB. They are features, not bugs, remember the banks came up with this fraudulent system to benefit themselves, not their customers.
Finally, you need regulators and law makers who generally aren't corrupt to ensure that the FRB system isn't abused.
Ok, let's implement fractional reserve banking AFTER you find out how to ensure a constant supply of regulators and law makers who generally aren't corrupt.
Continually devaluing the currency results in the collapse of empires and a return to commodity money. If you think the current system is sustainable then your study of the history of it is very limited. As far back as the greek and roman empires governments have devalued currencies. It hasn't worked out well yet and it's not about to start. You've been hoodwinked.
Since you got a little more specific instead of just repeating your mantra that I have no clue, it has become evident that you don't understand what I was proposing. If you think I was merely proposing an increase in reserve requirements you've got me all wrong. A fraudulent practice will not become workable if we just do it a little less extravagantly. Ending the practice of fractional reserve lending would abolish our banking system as it currently exists. Naturally that would be a difficult adjustment. I'm not suggesting we tweak the system I'm suggesting that we purge it of fraud. That's a major overhaul.
It isn't a matter of me being upset, do the math. What do you think the result of an exponentially inflated currency will be? Our banking system is very time limited by it's nature. I doubt there will be the political will to change it until it collapses of it's own accord, but it is possible to take actions to protect yourself from what is coming. If you follow the counsel of those who continually proclaim their control of the system before crashing it you are unlikely to but that's up to you.
Great. But you actually have no clue how all of what you just said would actually affect the world or the economy. You don't have any clue because you haven't done the research, you haven't analyzed the relevant data, all you know is that it seems to make sense with the little bit of information you do have. Go do the research, figure out what might happen, and then you might have a point. For now you don't.
You make claims about my knowledge, but your revered economists have proven themselves no better. Which of them predicted the financial collapse? You are following the lead of people of proven incompetence. Why do you think that's a good idea just because they took years of study to reach the level of incompetence that enabled them to destroy the wealth of millions of people?
No amount of complexity in a system will make fraud a widescale viable means of producing wealth. If you take years to think it is, you aren't studying you're being indoctrinated. What possible reason could you have for favouring the opinion of those who crashed the system over those who tried to prevent it because they understood?
Think about the financial crash: all the houses still existed, all the gold and silver still existed, all the factories still existed, all the roads, bridges, farms, ships, warehouses were all still there. Everything that constitutes real, tangible wealth. Even the printed currency didn't vanish. What disappeared? You and I both know the answer, but for some reason we have very different responses. The people who told you it was all under control before the tech bubble burst, then told you it was all under control before the real estate bubble burst are telling you it is all ok again. Does it make you feel better?
That said, i never knew there was such a thing as "too secure"
You've never lost the key to the blast proof underground safe you keep your asthma medication in obviously.
The constant pissing match between GPL and BSD advocates is a bit silly IMO. It seems to me (not being a programmer but being a user of BSD and GPL licensed software) that each licence is appropriate for difference circumstances, according to the desires of the author.
It's like arguing that knives are superior to forks, so I only eat with knives! Licenses are a tool, each suitable for it's purpose.
I don't agree that the GPL "childishly punishes" anyone, nor that it is viral. It is copyright that provides the "virality" (virusness?), not the GPL, and even BSD has the requirement of attribution making it just as viral (through copyright) though with less onerous conditions.
You clearly don't like the current system, but in any system money comes into the supply 'magically,' it's just a matter of who is doing it.
I'd say that mining operations have significantly more to do with engineering than magic. In any case, I'm not fixating on gold, it's fractional reserve lending I primarily object to as I regard it as legalised fraud. So far as we have an fiat currency rather than commodity currency I would like the creation of that currency to be solely the privilege and responsibility of the government rather than banks. Banks could lend out money as issued by the government only, not create new money through loans as is now the case. This is what causes deflation as a result of credit defaults.
Also, I don't think you understand: the increasing supply of gold was THE major cause of inflation.
There is a physical limitation on that inflation though without fractional reserve lending. This was been banking practice during the inflation you refer to. Essentially IMO currency should not cease to exist if a loan is not repaid.
Money is a difficult and dynamic thing, with its own demand and supply curve. Getting it right is not easy.
True, but disconnecting money from tangible reality seems to me to have very negative consequences, even though reality has it's own painful aspects. Given fiat currency, making the supply of it producible from nothing by the people who profit by doing so seems sure to result in ever expanding currency supply, as we have now.
Ron Paul certainly has done nothing to show that he knows better than everyone else.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr091003.htm
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. - Ron Paul September 10, 2003
Because they've done the study.
The study that made them incapable of predicting the crash or understanding the causes? Yeah, I'll get right on that.
Because now you're just looking like an idiot.
Maybe so, but I'm an idiot whose wealth didn't get wiped out. It grieves me to see so many otherwise intelligent people following the expertise of the very people who have just screwed them over. Maybe they should become idiots. If I'm an idiot, at least I'm a lucky idiot.
So if the majority of economists feel this way, why should normal people who don't have time to study the issues in the depth required agree with you over them?
Something to do with the majority of economists not predicting the GFC and the normal people being impoverished by that.
Why should I revere the amount of study they did in order to become incompetent?
If public education is so goddamned bad, then why has it worked so bloody well for other industrialized nations?
I tend towards libertarianism but maybe I'm not a "True Libertarian". I'll try to explain my view, but I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not against all government involvement in education or commerce. In Australia, the contents of food sold must be listed on the package in most circumstances. I know there are some who see that as regulation interfering with the free market. Personally I see it as enabling the free market because without that information the buyer cannot make an informed rational choice. Perhaps my opinion violates the "rules of libertarianism" ;) and maybe so in education as well.
Undoubtedly public education can produce a number of engineers, scientists and technicians. If that were the sole purpose of public education and the sole effect, it would indeed be hard to argue against. Unfortunately that is not the case. Public education has also been used as a method of social control. It's use for this purpose is clearly advocated in the communist manifesto. It's been a long time since I read Mien Kampf but it was certainly used by the Nazi's for this purpose also. I quote the communist manifesto: "The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class."
It is my contention that compulsory universal school systems will inevitably be used as a method of social control and oppression. Their benefit in producing those engineers, scientists and technicians needs to be considered in this light. What system should be implemented I leave open to debate, but I'd say that open licence textbooks is a huge step in the right direction. I can get that information even if I'm poor, nobody forces me to read that book or agree to it.
I've seen highly intelligent people here proclaim their dependence on corporations because they believe themselves to be incapable of living independently (ie as self-employed or running their own corporation). I do not accept that they are genetically incapable of that independence but that it has been induced by the method of education implemented on them (and their parents). The very thing that is supposed to benefit them (and does in some ways) has reduced them to slavish dependence on corporate executives and politicians that do not have their best interests at heart. That is my objection to universal public education, I do not see evidence that it is capable of producing any other result. Note my qualification of universal public education. Becoming an educated dependent employee is far preferable to living in grinding poverty and ignorance. I am not in favour of preventing the children of the poor from being helped up because of the ignorance, stupidity or bad luck of their parents.
He doesn't realize that during the start of the last century, gold itself was a major cause of inflation.
Try taking fractional reserve lending out of the picture and see how different that looks.
With a fiat system, there is potential for escaping the worst of the problems.
How's that working out for you? Nevertheless, IMO, the fractional reserve lending system is a bigger issue that whether the currency is commodity based or fiat based. So long as we have a fiat currency it ought to be issued by the government and not by banks. Lending money that doesn't exist should be prosecuted as fraud.
It's best for you personally to get out of debt and save money, borrowing only for productive purposes. If everyone did this in our current system it crashes the economy because our currency supply is produced by borrowing.
Nice idea, but Corps would just give money to employees, who would then "donate" it to the Congress criitter. I suspect this already happens...
Introducing the possibility that the employee pockets it for themselves or donates it to the opposing candidate.
Dissolve any corporation found to be making political donations (even if they are too big to fail) and mandatory lengthy prison term (10+ years) for individuals found guilty of participating.
Throw in a literacy requirement for voter registration while we're at it.
You clearly don't understand. Yes *property* is transferable, but rights are not. You don't lose your right to "own stuff" just because you sell all your possessions on ebay. That right to own property still exists, even if you have nothing. The right is inalienable.
Yes, look how wrong I got it in the post you replied to:
Ownership of a particular possession is transferable. Selling is a transfer. You don't give up your right to own possessions but you are transferring your ownership of a possession to another.
My bad, I see how badly I misunderstood now.
Now, seriously, if you can contract a right away even one time it is not inalienable. When you transfer or repudiate property, the property doesn't disappear, your right to it does. The story is about a particular piece of property. Autodesk is not trying to deprive him of the right to sell second hand goods in general, but in regard to a particular piece of property. The argument that selling second hand goods is an inalienable right is nonsensical if it can't then be applied to an individual product for which you can transfer or repudiate that right.
Sorry to nitpick, but signing a contract saying you can't resell something is not an example of transferring a right.
Agreed. See repudiate
I've had customers bring in machines like that.
Ownership of self and one's possessions (i.e. stuff you acquired through your body's labor) is NOT transferable.
Ownership of a particular possession is transferable. Selling is a transfer. You don't give up your right to own possessions but you are transferring your ownership of a possession to another. Since you are able to abandon or give a possession away it is definitely alienable.
Why the hell would I want to do that? I would no more do that than I would sell myself into perpetual slavery.
For a benefit offered to you by the original seller. If they offered it to you at half price on the condition that you may use, destroy or return it but not resell that would certainly be a valid contract, since you had transferred your right to resell for a financial benefit.
You would think then that he is selling his right to use it, changing nothing of first sale doctrines applicability.
I have the inalienable *right* to sell my old unwanted CDs, DVD, or disks.
You are using the word inalienable incorrectly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable
-adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
There are some rights you cannot be understood to have repudiated or transferred by contract, such as self-defence. Even if you sign a contract saying you won't defend yourself a court will still uphold your right to do so. Second hand selling is not like that. You have a right to do it, but it's not an inalienable right. If you were to sign a contract "I give up my right so sell this product second hand in return for a lower purchase price" for example, you could be held to that. If every right was inalienable, contracts would be impossible.
Uhm, yes it is a patent troll, it describes the way most online registrations work.
In 1993. When did Bill Gates say the internet was just a passing fad?