Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/4/12 10:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

So to break things down;

1. There was an expansion of credit prior to 1907 [most always a prior condition for a bank run], then there was a bank run. The bank run caused banks to go out of business for having expanded credit recklessly. Does any of this contradict what I or you have said? If so I'm not aware of it.

The bank run was not caused by an "expansion of credit prior to 1907." It was caused by a massive natural disaster that caused businesses and individuals who owned property in and around San Francisco to call in their insurance policies at the same time. The inability of San Francisco banks to deal with the sheer scope of redeemed policies (since, contrary to your fantasy world, at no point in actual American history did banks have 100% of their claimed deposits on hand at any one time) caused them to fall. This brought in re-insurance agencies from the West and East Coasts, much like the financial collapse of AIG in 2007.

The exception is that, in 1907, none of the re-insurers (or the government, which was very nearly run out of money in the Treasury by the unforseen scope of the earthquake) had the ability to easily add money to the national supply. As a result, the re-insurers - like New York Knickerbocker - also went bankrupt, causing a cascade effect that plunged the economy into a massive financial Panic and depression. Why? Because gold failed to allow for the flexibility to absorb such an economic hit, a fact which after 1907 even conservative midwestern Democrats realized needed to be fixed with a more flexible monetary system.

I hold that the consequences of fractional reserve lending are worse in the end than the bank runs themselves.

I don't see how "not a depression" is worse than "a confirmed, historically documented depression."

[In part because, in my analysis of the events, the former causes the latter on top of other things] So establishing a system that makes it possible for banks to engage in more of it without facing any consequences is bad. I did not make a heavy case for this and I will not until two things happen; #1; You understand why if someone holds this view they will hold antithetical prescriptions to yours #2; You demand that I make a case for it.

Lets be honest, you didn't even remember we were talking about an earthquake, and you don't have much of an idea how bond markets work, so I'm going to be skeptical of your 'economic analysis' of an event you showed no knowledge of until I explained it to you in detail twice now.

4. None of what I believe relates to a lack of knowledge of particular events

It relates to an entire lack of knowledge of particular events, mainly the ones of which you are speaking about.

[Because I already knew every historical data you mentioned beforehand].

Stahp.

If you think stating more event information will help me change my mind then by all means supply said information.

I don't think anything will make you change your mind, because that's not how this process works. Not even living through an event very similar to but infinitely less bad than the 1907 Panic (I'm talking about the 2007 financial crisis) has alerted you to the historical comparisons or the lessons we've learned. There is a REASON why our systems changed following that 20th Century Panic. You just have no interest in actually combining pieces of information into a novel opinion, and you most likely never will.

At 12/4/12 10:38 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

....which they are. God damn, are you allergic* to actually researching anything? Payroll contributions to Social Security go into a trust fund, where they're converted into government-backed interest-yielding securities. They bring in about 4% or so a year in earned interest on contributed funds.

interest which comes from other *taxes* --> It's tax dollars being spent to buy pieces of paper which promise the recipient interest payments which are collected in taxes from the younger generations payroll/income taxes.

No, interest which comes from guaranteed special-issue Treasury Bonds which can be redeemed at face value as soon as they are purchased, if necessary. The main difference between the Treasuries you can purchase on the open market and these is that these are only for the purchase and sale of the two component organizations that make up what is known as Social Security.

These "pieces of paper" (I am never going to understand the sudden uptick in people who doubt a system which has promoted economic growth since its inception) are promissory notes backed against the future revenues of the government through a combination of taxation and growth in the domestic product over time. The ultimate function of these special bonds is really no different than a corporate bond or a deferred dividend, and the concept has been around since the Babylonians began trading with other cities several thousand years before Christ. The functioning of this system is in no way revolutionary.

*Functionally* It would be no different if his tax dollars were thrown in with the rest of the governments revenues, spent on things, and when our baby boomer retired, Gen X and Gen Y workers's taxes were collected to pay for it.

This only holds if you assume net zero percent economic growth over the duration of the bond, in which case further borrowing is essential. I think Speaker Boehner has laid out a rather elegant model for how one can both repay the bond model of Social Security without significant changes in the current tax code. There's no "one correct method."

And functionality is all that matters when defining things as one thing or another. But the only way for you to see this is to stop thinking about *returns* as the means to determine whether something is an investment in the same way that lending money to a company to grow it's business is an investment, or getting job training is an investment.

So in short, disregard the capitalist model. If I stop thinking of returns (the means by which we measure the prospects of an investment) as a means of determining whether something is an investment, you might as well also call for the complete closure of the stock markets of the world.

The money being put in the 'investment'

I wish you'd stop accentuating the word investment as if it wasn't a real economic concept.

is not actually related in any way to what the returns on it promise. The government's buying of it's own treasury does not do anything per-say which would allow it to reasonably ascertain that it could get a 4% return on whatever the level of IOU it purchased from itself.

The parts of this that aren't multisyllabic babble show a woeful misunderstanding of how bond markets work. A 4.4% return Special Treasury owes no owner other than whichever of the two component Social Security organizations owns it. If your issue is with the economic concept of intragovernmental bonding, I suggest you take that up with a high school economics teacher. A bond offers two main options: payment of interest premiums or default. Of the two, one has happened in 100% of historical cases related to Social Security, and one has happened in 0% of historical cases. Would you care to guess which is which?

It can promise a return of 4% if it can raise the taxes necessary to refund it, is the ability of the government to raise taxes determined by how much money it took from a previous generation of workers

See above points from previous paragraphs. You are officially repeating yourself.

Or to put it another way.

How many ways would you like to repeat your one factually incorrect opinion on how bonds and growth work?

The Government could give you in old age a 4% return

You've lost it, since the government isn't giving YOU a 4% return on the bonds it's buying with Social Security payroll taxes. The 4% bond is there to ladder the Social Security system so as not to force any one calendar period where all interest comes due. This is essential, since you can cash out special Treasury Notes at any time at full face value, while forfeiting the interest on that bond. Can you see what I'm saying here? Bond laddering for optimal returns. Milton Friedman wrote about it.

on an arbitrary amount of social security taxes even if NO ONE in your generation, including you, paid into the system to begin with, as long as there is a working generation able to pay the taxes.

Or, as I've repeated to your repetition, a growing economy.

If you want to prove that SS is an actual investment then you would need to demonstrate how the social security taxes paid by current retirees were essential to the ability of the Federal government to tax current generations. They are not, and this is evidenced by the existence of Welfare; which is basically social security except with different parameters and fewer pretensions.

Again. Neither "Social Security" nor "Welfare" are individual things. They're made of independent programs which are funded individually, with some sharing similar characteristics and some funded through other means. Saying welfare is "like Social Security except with different parameters" is like saying that a hunk of tungsten ore is "like a futures contract except with different parameters." They are entirely different, and you'd do well to do some level of research on this before you make a fool of yourself any further. I'm sorry man, but even in the age of Millennials there are still correct and incorrect answers to how systems function.

Also Sorry for being repetitive.

It's okay, it was fairly obvious from the start you only had one weak point, picked up second-hand from somewhere, and by God you were going to hammer that point home in the hopes I didn't have any functional understanding of how interest markets and Treasuries worked.

At 12/4/12 10:10 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
By 1907 a growing public might have wanted some way to ensure that they got 'their money back' -- while most certainly the majority of Banks wanted a way that they could engage in fractional reserve banking without fearing about any REAL negative consequences.

I see "reading the actual history surrounding the events" is not going to work with you. Never let history get in the way of a good opinion, I suppose.

At 12/4/12 08:31 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Because [from my impression of your post] You're treating social security taxes as 'invested' in something... rather than simply inserted into a rube goldberg machine where the ultimate outcome is "Gen 2 and 3 Taxed to pay for Gen 1"

....which they are. God damn, are you alleric to actually researching anything? Payroll contributions to Social Security go into a trust fund, where they're converted into government-backed interest-yielding securities. They bring in about 4% or so a year in earned interest on contributed funds.

At 12/4/12 08:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Some how I am not in the leased bit intimidated but I do take pity upon those who think that exalting terrorism in the form of an attempt/implied Missile attack is a courageous act when it is a cowardly act of terrorism.

THAT'S IT YOU'RE ON THE STRIKE LIST I'M CALLING OBAMA. Where is my Fiat Fone?

At 12/4/12 08:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Again I'm saying the purpose of a gold standard is to prevent banks from being able to simultaneously make contractual obligations to depositors allowing them to withdraw their money on demand and at the same time issue that debt to other poeple and other banks.

So what you're saying, as far as I can tell from two attempts at this, is that the Panic of 1907 and the waves of bank closures and financial instability it caused was an optimal and expected benefit of the gold standard? Because it seems to me that whole gold-based Panic turned a lot of people off to the idea of basing everything tightly against gold.

Think of it like a balloon vs. a test tube. If water rushes into one, it can inflate and handle the temporary situation. The other will shatter under the pressure.

You're operating under the assumption that a specific set of financial practices should be legally permissible.

I'm also operating under assumptions about spelling and grammar. If you're going to pull a leanlifter and attempt to invalidate the entire economic system because it's DIFFERENT TODAY than it was in the 19th Century, I don't know what to tell you man.

At 12/4/12 04:55 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 12/4/12 04:10 PM, JMHX wrote:

At 12/4/12 03:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Post that shit in General, yo.

THIS IS POLITICAL AS FUCK BRO.

Yea, but it's ignorant, tho. All it is's you running your mouth, thinkin you is all clevs and shit, yet you got nothin to say.

This is the news America needs.

At 12/4/12 05:14 PM, adrshepard wrote:

There's a reason ivy-league and prestigious schools only accept a handful of applications each year; their academic programs are intense and only a select few capable students can handle them.

Having gone through one of these programs I can without any doubt guarantee you this is not a true rationale.

At 12/4/12 04:59 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/3/12 11:30 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Hah! Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.

yeah, seriously, good job on beating down that strawman.

Straw was historically a major Egyptian export until the British pressured Mohammed Ali into deindustrialization in the 19th Century.

At 12/4/12 03:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Post that shit in General, yo.

THIS IS POLITICAL AS FUCK BRO.

Here is Mitt Romney in a full suit dining on some fine McDonalds. Look at his face. What is he thinking? He remembers the days when a man dressed in a suit to get his McFlurry. God, Mitt must wonder, it's been so long since I had the chance to enjoy some beef particulate matter and strained, mechanically-separated chicken. I hope the checkout lady doesn't ask me to shake hands or anything. I wonder what Obama's eating right now.

Mitt is keeping his thoughts inside, though. He shares with no man. He requests no onions on his double cheeseburger. Also, no meat, cheese, or bun. He'll have nothing, thanks. Just a cup of water, no ice. This is how it should be, Mitt thinks to himself. We should all be wearing suits to McDonalds. Forever.

Does Mitt get hungry? YES. And when he gets hungry, Willard puts on his best khaki shorts and wanders to the Wal Mart to procure his favorite snack - two boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios. Does he think about how his choice of breakfast cereal parallels the favorite food of The Wire's Omar Little, a homosexual gangster who nevertheless remains one of television's most popular anti-heroes?

When Mitt goes to the checkout with his two boxes of cereal, does he offer to pay with a no-longer-circulating $500 bill, bearing the face of President Grover Cleveland, another man unappreciated in his day? Does Mitt Romney only go to the store to purchase Honey Nut Cheerios? Does Mitt wonder as he stands in line whether Barack Obama is also, at that very moment, eating Honey Nut Cheerios in the White House?

And here we have Willard M. Romney at CostCo, purchasing a basket of entropy. Towels and toilet paper, peanuts, assorted sundry snacks and massive pallets of bottled water, all at a grand discount, saving as much as possible for his next presidential campaign.

Why does he hide behind the stylish sunglasses and that slightly-too-small baseball cap? Did he imagine this made him look natural, incognito, a ghost among the CostCo shoppers? Does he think he's blending in? As Mitt descends into insanity he picks up a toy car and throws it into the cart, tears welling in his eyes. Made in China, the box says. China. His eternal and unflinching enemy. Mitt pulls down the bill of his cap until it cuts off circulation to his brain. Underneath, his hair is unaffected.

What is Mitt going to do with all those towels?

Here we see Mitt Romney challenging Big Thunder Mountain. Does the endless loop of the roller coaster make him think about Colorado and New Mexico? Does the very westernness of the ride harken back to a time of light government regulation, when men wore hats and stood up for what was right? A time before Obamacare and dependence on government?

Does the train make him think of the role government has played in partnering with private industry to construct the truly grand projects of American history? As the roller coaster turns the corner, does Mitt introduce himself anew to each family that sits near him, riding day and night, hours on end, staring blankly into the darkness of his soul and wondering if, perhaps, this is the way to Galt's Gulch?

I will be compiling a photojournal of Mitt Romney's gradual descent into madness, and you're welcome to contribute.

Here is a perfect photo to start the series. Here we see the former Republican presidential candidate riding a roller coaster at Disney Land. His eyes are empty, concerned. Is he wondering whether a recount might have worked in Florida? Is he thinking about ways he might have appeared more human to the working class?

Did Mitt take this moment of solitude to reflect on his earliest memories of Disney Land, the sweet moments with his father racking his brain until, driven to madness, he lets out a bestial roar?

At 12/4/12 12:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/4/12 12:04 PM, JMHX wrote:

You are still ignoring the fact of Fiat currency & Inflation.

Yes. Yes I am.

At 12/4/12 10:53 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/4/12 09:44 AM, JMHX wrote: whistleblowing violates the Espionage Act and endangers national security

I bet you are the first in Line for Government issue flu shots, Koolaid and RFID devices.

If you had ANY reading comprehension, you'd see that I went on to say that this offends my beliefs. I don't advocate prosecuting ANY whistleblower, but I'm also aware that those pesky Courts have been more than willing to follow-through Obama Administration prosecutions under the Espionage Act.

Jesus fucking Christ leanlifter, try reading for context for once instead of skimming a paragraph and shooting off some of your kneejerk anti-government shit. If you actually shut the fuck up and listened you'd find we actually agree on quite a few things.

I didn't think this was an allegation. The government in court filings has admitted as much, but complains about Binney on the ground that his whistleblowing violates the Espionage Act and endangers national security by revealing material operating information about NSA programs. The rate of prosecutions related to whistleblowing on NSA programs has picked up in recent years, with President Obama one of the most prolific users of Espionage Act authority to charge government employees with material breaches of national security.

It's unfortunate, but the program itself is actually really interesting, if completely abhorrent to my beliefs.

And to get out ahead of leanlifter, this does not have anything to do with inflation or fiat currency.

At 12/4/12 09:16 AM, science-is-fun wrote:
Apparently he's studied millionaires for decades, either Mandi Woodruff misinterpreted Steve Siebold, or Steve Siebold is just writing another self-help book style list of empty platitudes.

I can't think of anything more quintessentially American.

At 12/4/12 12:13 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
It is neither in support nor against it is a fact Obama is a Figure Head.

That head could pop you with a Predator from the skyyyyyyyyyyy

At 12/3/12 04:12 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
I was actually hoping they discovered evidence of the all great & powerful Flying Spagetti Monster possibly some pasta pieces or sauce from his resting on Mars after creating life & mankind on Earth 6000 or so years ago !

You might be autistic, my Internet friend.

Chlorine compounds are not greater than religion.

At 12/3/12 01:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/3/12 09:50 AM, JMHX wrote: Poxxy laughed at me when I suggested banning leanlifter.

You have been informed, your mods are a lie.

Maybe leanlifter is poxpower's alt.

Call Joe Rogan, he'll investigate.

LOL. I KNEW you would post something from ASPO.

On ASPO's "Peak Oil Date:

- Initially projected to occur by the year 1997.
- Pushed back to 2000
- Then 2010
- Then 2006
- Then 2005
- Then 2010 again

They also tend to ignore how the global recession dented global demand for oil and gas, leading to a slump in refining due to lack of aggregate demand. PEAK OIL INDEED, SIR.

At 12/3/12 01:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 12/3/12 01:09 PM, JMHX wrote: I'm all for demolishing barriers to trade and thus lowering the cost of fuels and other goods in the process.

The cost of Oil will never go down it will always be on the incline due to post "Peak Oil" which nobody seems to want to factor into reality.

It must be very boring for you, knowing everything with absolute certainty in spite of experiential evidence to the contrary.

I'm all for demolishing barriers to trade and thus lowering the cost of fuels and other goods in the process.

At 12/3/12 12:43 PM, Feoric wrote: I mean, he does have an extensive history of derailing threads, which I would assume would warrant a ban. Guess not. Ridiculing him doesn't seem to work, and I don't think anyone here can resist replying to him.

What can we do?

Split the forum into Eastern and Western Empires?

er

The obsession with self-sufficiency is just another vestige of dying protectionism. Self-sufficiency hasn't worked so well for any of the nations that have tried it. Emphasis should be on stabilizing foreign sources of oil, not going on some mad quest to make Fortress America.

Poxxy laughed at me when I suggested banning leanlifter.

You have been informed, your mods are a lie.

At 12/2/12 09:14 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Are you actually black or are you just a white guy pretending to be black?

Wow, man. Wow.

Some states allow ex-felons to vote. Some don't. It really depends on what the people of the state want. Isn't it simple enough?