Severe economic booms and busts have existed almost nonstop since the fed was created in 1913. They inflated to get us into WWI. Then they kept it up. Ever hear of the roaring 20's? That was the inflation of the bubble which has to inevitable burst which was the depression. WWII only got us out of the depression if you consider sending millions of unemployed men overseas to fight and die a good way to cure unemployment. If you look at the people in the US during the war they were still living like they were in the depression. Everything was rationed and it was horrible. The economy didn't get better until after the war ended and millions of soldiers were fired by the military.
The 90's boom was similar. The cold war ended and Clinton rightfully gut the military since we didn't need to fight the soviets. That released lots of labor to work on things people actually want. But in addition Greenspan inflated like crazy. We had this thing called the dot com bubble which is where all of the malinvestment went in the 90's and burst in 2000.
As for Barclays and the rest of the bankers should be tried and put in prison as far as I'm concerned. Fiat money, fractional reseve banking, FDIC, and legal tender laws are tools the bankers use to suck the wealth out of the producers in society.
Close. Most things that undergo radioactive decay become other radioactive elements and different particles of various energies. You have to look at the whole decay chain to find out where the bad ones are.
I'll explain our current situation. After y2k and 9/11 those in power were scared we were going into recession. They were right we were. It is to be expected when you are facing an unknown threat. The correct course would have been for people to reduce debt and start saving to prepare for the worse. This naturally shifts production from long term capital goods to near term consumer goods. But the Federal Reserve wouldn't allow it. They pumped out the money like no tomorrow. This sends a false signal that people are thinking long term and it's time to build capacity. When businesses calculate if a long term project it worthwhile a major factor is what is the interest rate and expected inflation. At first both rates are low. Hence the housing boom and outsourcing to ramp up capacity. Now eventually prices rise due to all of this new money floating around chasing the same amount of resources Oil, Gold, Housing, ect. As prices rise all of those inflation numbers that people used in their calculations eat away the justification for increasing capacity. Then you get the crash as all of this projects are abandoned and the misallocation of resources and labor are exposed. The only solution is to let it work itself out. The market had a signal for a long time that more houses were needed because people were paying record amounts for them. If the easy credit wasn't there it would have been a good signal. But as it turns out all of the labor and material put into housing was a waste. Now you have to let the price of houses crash to where the market will support. All of those people that were employed by housing construction have to find new productive lines of work.
Let me know if this is making sense and I'll keep writing.
I'm not sure how you can believe your economic death spiral philosophy. It doesn't make any logical sense. How does your version of an economy get started in the first place? How did we get to here from a hunter gatherer society? Did some magic being create jobs which created growth which created jobs which created demand? Of course not.
The way an economy grows is simple. People first have to consume less than they produce. This is savings. Then they can spend time and energy building capital goods which increase productive. More productivity means destroying existing jobs and cheaper goods. This frees up labor for working where they can add the most value. This process continues and we get richer and more comfortable as we have to work less for things.
Think about an isolated hunter gatherer society. They spend all of their time trying to survive. They have to either ration food or spend extra time hunting to get enough food for them to have the time to plant crops or raise animals. Both these things require a lot of effort at first to build the tools and work the land. But after they get it done they can feed themselves using fewer people. Now some people can think about what else to do like build furniture or boats or something else they never could have done if they had to hunt.
What you are failing to see is that your scenario can't happen for long. The only times there is a single provider of anything is when there is a government granted monopoly. If there are no legal barriers to competition just the threat of competition will keep prices down.
This is a great thing. It is much more efficient if everyone ordered all of their crap online and a delivery van went around the neighborhood dropping it off. I'm still waiting for a real grocer that I can buy online but I'm still a bit too rural for that. Think of all the time and resources saved by not having everyone go out hunting and gathering goods.
You answered your own question. Those of us that keep making the case for liberty over and over online and elsewhere is helping spread the word. Eventually this will lead to change.
I made a mistake about how heroin is used. My point is still valid. If opium was legal you would see more people using it over heroin and it would be safer. Heroin is only more popular in the US because of prohibition.
You may have missed my point. I know all of the concentrated forms of the drug exist. But the "preferred" way of taking it is going to dictate what percent of the drug is available in that concentrates form.
Take caffeine. Sure there are caffeine pills. But what percentage of caffeine in the US is in concentrated pill form vs all dilute forms like coffee, tea, soda ect?
Take alcohol. What percentage of alcohol in the US is consumed as beer and wine vs spirits? Even though they are lower proof the quantity consumed more than makes up for it.
The only reason the hard drugs exist is because of prohibition. If you have a black market you want the product to be as potent and easily concealable/transportable as possible. Back in prohibition times most alcohol was as high of a percentage as was easy to distill. The same with coke and heroin. Chewing Coca leaves or making tea are the preferred method of consumption in the south american countries where it is grown and legal. Smoking Opium is preferred over shooting heroin. In the US Caffeine is preferred in beverages. If caffeine was made illegal you can bet there would be a black market for it as a concentrated powder or pill. The reason it's easier to OD on hard drugs is due in part to how concentrated they are and how irregular the concentration of active pharmaceutic is.
In Florida where I live the law says that a police officer can arrest someone out of their jurisdiction because it's the same as a citizens arrest. They way it is supposed to work is you detain the suspect and call the local sheriff with jurisdiction. Then they or a subordinate decide whether to take that person into custody. If it goes to trial whoever made the arrest has to show up.
Like you said police would just be paid to become experts on the law and learn tecniques to arrest people safely but still have the same rights as any person.
If I had my choice I would want all airplanes to be 2x2. No middle seats is my dream because I'm always next to someone spilling over their armrest.
The only problem with air travel is the TSA. In the old days you could just show up 20 minutes before a flight and walk through a metal detector set to only detect handguns 9mm or larger and be on your way. These days it's easier to drive unless nature put an ocean in your way.
Air travel is the best method of long distance travel because there is a network effect. If you build a new airport somewhere it is instantly connected to every airport that an aircraft can reach from there. There is plenty of air space to route flights around with the exception of some cities and even there it can be improved with better tech.
Trains are great for commuting into or between cities where you don't need a car. Florida was going to put a high speed rail from Orlando to Tampa but it doesn't make sense. You can't get around either city without a car and they are only an hour and a half apart driving. It will be cheaper and easier to just drive. I used to live in NJ and it was nice taking a train into NYC since it's hard to drive there and expensive to park.
I've used that handle for about 25 years. So a 14 year old version of myself thought it was cool and I've kept it since it usually isn't taken and I'm a bit nostalgic for it.
Almost coder. BS Mechanical Engineering and a BS in Computer Science for fun.
I run in those and they are great. I was thinking about making an ultra light version by casting my feet in dental resin. Pouring a plaster of Paris positive. Then painting on some polyurethane.
Or just include those provisions in your own private contract.
The beauty of private contacts is each religion could write their own standard one that includes things important to your religion. If I really matters where you got married you might see some differences in behavior.
As for kids and adoptions it just brings up another issue that government should stay out of. When government runs the foster care system it isn't in the beuracrats interest to get kids adopted. Imagine if they were efficient at this there would be no reason to have so many people. Back when there private charity run orphanages the kids cost money so they wanted to get them adopts quickly. When it's state run the more kids in the system the more money everyone involved makes.
Go back to aprivate charity system. That way in your will you can say where your kids are going if you die. If you don't want your kids raised by gays than will them to an organization that discriminates the way you like.
As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Severe economic booms and busts have existed almost nonstop since the fed was created in 1913. They inflated to get us into WWI. Then they kept it up. Ever hear of the roaring 20's? That was the inflation of the bubble which has to inevitable burst which was the depression. WWII only got us out of the depression if you consider sending millions of unemployed men overseas to fight and die a good way to cure unemployment. If you look at the people in the US during the war they were still living like they were in the depression. Everything was rationed and it was horrible. The economy didn't get better until after the war ended and millions of soldiers were fired by the military.
The 90's boom was similar. The cold war ended and Clinton rightfully gut the military since we didn't need to fight the soviets. That released lots of labor to work on things people actually want. But in addition Greenspan inflated like crazy. We had this thing called the dot com bubble which is where all of the malinvestment went in the 90's and burst in 2000.
As for Barclays and the rest of the bankers should be tried and put in prison as far as I'm concerned. Fiat money, fractional reseve banking, FDIC, and legal tender laws are tools the bankers use to suck the wealth out of the producers in society.
Sapphire is pretty cheap.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/windows-diffusers/ultraviolet-uv-infrared-ir-windows/sapphire-windows/1904
Close. Most things that undergo radioactive decay become other radioactive elements and different particles of various energies. You have to look at the whole decay chain to find out where the bad ones are.
I'll explain our current situation. After y2k and 9/11 those in power were scared we were going into recession. They were right we were. It is to be expected when you are facing an unknown threat. The correct course would have been for people to reduce debt and start saving to prepare for the worse. This naturally shifts production from long term capital goods to near term consumer goods. But the Federal Reserve wouldn't allow it. They pumped out the money like no tomorrow. This sends a false signal that people are thinking long term and it's time to build capacity. When businesses calculate if a long term project it worthwhile a major factor is what is the interest rate and expected inflation. At first both rates are low. Hence the housing boom and outsourcing to ramp up capacity. Now eventually prices rise due to all of this new money floating around chasing the same amount of resources Oil, Gold, Housing, ect. As prices rise all of those inflation numbers that people used in their calculations eat away the justification for increasing capacity. Then you get the crash as all of this projects are abandoned and the misallocation of resources and labor are exposed. The only solution is to let it work itself out. The market had a signal for a long time that more houses were needed because people were paying record amounts for them. If the easy credit wasn't there it would have been a good signal. But as it turns out all of the labor and material put into housing was a waste. Now you have to let the price of houses crash to where the market will support. All of those people that were employed by housing construction have to find new productive lines of work.
Let me know if this is making sense and I'll keep writing.
I'm not sure how you can believe your economic death spiral philosophy. It doesn't make any logical sense. How does your version of an economy get started in the first place? How did we get to here from a hunter gatherer society? Did some magic being create jobs which created growth which created jobs which created demand? Of course not.
The way an economy grows is simple. People first have to consume less than they produce. This is savings. Then they can spend time and energy building capital goods which increase productive. More productivity means destroying existing jobs and cheaper goods. This frees up labor for working where they can add the most value. This process continues and we get richer and more comfortable as we have to work less for things.
Think about an isolated hunter gatherer society. They spend all of their time trying to survive. They have to either ration food or spend extra time hunting to get enough food for them to have the time to plant crops or raise animals. Both these things require a lot of effort at first to build the tools and work the land. But after they get it done they can feed themselves using fewer people. Now some people can think about what else to do like build furniture or boats or something else they never could have done if they had to hunt.
What you are failing to see is that your scenario can't happen for long. The only times there is a single provider of anything is when there is a government granted monopoly. If there are no legal barriers to competition just the threat of competition will keep prices down.
This is a great thing. It is much more efficient if everyone ordered all of their crap online and a delivery van went around the neighborhood dropping it off. I'm still waiting for a real grocer that I can buy online but I'm still a bit too rural for that. Think of all the time and resources saved by not having everyone go out hunting and gathering goods.
You answered your own question. Those of us that keep making the case for liberty over and over online and elsewhere is helping spread the word. Eventually this will lead to change.
I made a mistake about how heroin is used. My point is still valid. If opium was legal you would see more people using it over heroin and it would be safer. Heroin is only more popular in the US because of prohibition.
You may have missed my point. I know all of the concentrated forms of the drug exist. But the "preferred" way of taking it is going to dictate what percent of the drug is available in that concentrates form.
Take caffeine. Sure there are caffeine pills. But what percentage of caffeine in the US is in concentrated pill form vs all dilute forms like coffee, tea, soda ect?
Take alcohol. What percentage of alcohol in the US is consumed as beer and wine vs spirits? Even though they are lower proof the quantity consumed more than makes up for it.
The big problem in NYC is parking the damn car. People who have the bucks take taxis or town cars. They are almost always the fastest.
The only reason the hard drugs exist is because of prohibition. If you have a black market you want the product to be as potent and easily concealable/transportable as possible. Back in prohibition times most alcohol was as high of a percentage as was easy to distill. The same with coke and heroin. Chewing Coca leaves or making tea are the preferred method of consumption in the south american countries where it is grown and legal. Smoking Opium is preferred over shooting heroin. In the US Caffeine is preferred in beverages. If caffeine was made illegal you can bet there would be a black market for it as a concentrated powder or pill. The reason it's easier to OD on hard drugs is due in part to how concentrated they are and how irregular the concentration of active pharmaceutic is.
Come down to Florida to cool off this summer. I haven't had a day over 100 yet.
In Florida where I live the law says that a police officer can arrest someone out of their jurisdiction because it's the same as a citizens arrest. They way it is supposed to work is you detain the suspect and call the local sheriff with jurisdiction. Then they or a subordinate decide whether to
take that person into custody. If it goes to trial whoever made the arrest has to show up.
Like you said police would just be paid to become experts on the law and learn tecniques to arrest people safely but still have the same rights as any person.
If I had my choice I would want all airplanes to be 2x2. No middle seats is my dream because I'm always next to someone spilling over their armrest.
The only problem with air travel is the TSA. In the old days you could just show up 20 minutes before a flight and walk through a metal detector set to only detect handguns 9mm or larger and be on your way. These days it's easier to drive unless nature put an ocean in your way.
Air travel is the best method of long distance travel because there is a network effect. If you build a new airport somewhere it is instantly connected to every airport that an aircraft can reach from there. There is plenty of air space to route flights around with the exception of some cities and even there it can be improved with better tech.
Trains are great for commuting into or between cities where you don't need a car. Florida was going to put a high speed rail from Orlando to Tampa but it doesn't make sense. You can't get around either city without a car and they are only an hour and a half apart driving. It will be cheaper and easier to just drive. I used to live in NJ and it was nice taking a train into NYC since it's hard to drive there and expensive to park.
When will IP apologists give it up?
We trouts have an excellent sense of direction.
I've used that handle for about 25 years. So a 14 year old version of myself thought it was cool and I've kept it since it usually isn't taken and I'm a bit nostalgic for it.
Almost coder. BS Mechanical Engineering and a BS in Computer Science for fun.
Let me just turn on this scanner here....
I run in those and they are great. I was thinking about making an ultra light version by casting my feet in dental resin. Pouring a plaster of Paris positive. Then painting on some polyurethane.
Seriously if they screw this up they just get another bailout. It's a win win for them.
I think it's morally wrong and none of my business.
Or just include those provisions in your own private contract.
The beauty of private contacts is each religion could write their own standard one that includes things important to your religion. If I really matters where you got married you might see some differences in behavior.
As for kids and adoptions it just brings up another issue that government should stay out of. When government runs the foster care system it isn't in the beuracrats interest to get kids adopted. Imagine if they were efficient at this there would be no reason to have so many people. Back when there private charity run orphanages the kids cost money so they wanted to get them adopts quickly. When it's state run the more kids in the system the more money everyone involved makes.
Go back to aprivate charity system. That way in your will you can say where your kids are going if you die. If you don't want your kids raised by gays than will them to an organization that discriminates the way you like.
Or just ask the patient?
As far as the government is concerned marriage should be treated like any other contract. They should have no say in the contents. If there is a breech take it to court and let a jury decide. Then purge out of law any benefits or tax considerations based on material status and just people as individuals.