3,386 Forum Posts by "BrianEtrius"
At 12/17/14 06:09 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: The people most opposed to this policy change are the Cuban exiles themselves.
Wait, you telling me the people who left because they didn't like Castro's policies are against an idea that supports Castro's government? No way! Someone should tell Mark Rubio as he's such an "expert" on Cuba being from Canada.
The embargo has been obsolete for a while now though.
Jokes aside, this. You have to realize the embargo has served as more as a symbolic gesture against the Cold War ideal of the threat of communism, which, in wake of the collapse of the USSR, is not much more of an ideal threat. The fact it's lasted this long shows how ingrained into US politics the Cuban exiles have put themselves.
At 12/17/14 02:48 PM, TNT wrote: Is it just me, or is this topic starting to get a bit off topic? Aren't we talking about privatizing the police?
I have a question to bring to this topic, and I don't know if it has been addressed or not, but has there ever been an effective private police force in any country that isn't power hungry on money?
No, because inherelently a private police force is in it for money. Think about it: if you are hiring someone, are they in it for the job? In most cases, no, it's the money. Why would private contractors be any different? Yet somehow the United States thinks it's a good thing, and the only reason at that point is the sheer nature of the military-industrial complex aspect of the economy.
Wonder what Republicans are going to try to use on Hilary, because now they absolutely don't have anything except maybe her age? Not really an issue here anyways, but still, all this does is make those loud-mouthed Republicans (I'm looking at you Ted Cruz) even more like idiots.
At 11/21/14 12:00 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Um The Constitution of the United States of America !
Again, where does it say this? Please quote, because I am obviously dumb when it comes to the Constitution. Where does it give the right to the military to arrest the president?
Please quote and give the article where it says this.
At 11/20/14 11:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: They can only do so much within the bureaucracy and bullshit within the ranks of Government. The good Cops will have much more freedom and resources at their disposal to actually fight and win against corrupt Government collusion and elite criminal enterprises. Private Police could actually arrest Obama and Bush for ... "Crimes Against Humanity". Military has the authority and constitutional obligation to do such but unfortunately ... they are corrupt as well and once again the bureaucracy.
Illusions of grandeur.
Corruption is not the job of local cops. Corruption is the job of Feds or the staties, like the FBI or state police. Nor it is the police's job to deal with bullshit. That is part of the job and the fun of bureaucracy.
On who's authority would the president be arrested on? And on whose authority does it give private police/military to do that? The military doesn't, because then there would be huge temptations for coups. Please should be where in the Constitution does it actually say what you claim.
Otherwise, I'm going to continue posting pictures of fish, because that's what you're doing now. You're fishing for answers when there are none. Your arguments are floundering around in circles. It would take an act of cod for you to give a straightforward answer. At this point, you're just typing for the halibut.
At 11/20/14 10:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So Government employed Police protecting Banks and other finical interests deemed imported to the Government is any different ?
Police don't protect banks, with the except of federal and state banks, because, well, their government building. Private security handles most commercial and investment banks, not the police. Now granted, if there is a robbery, then the police will naturally react as robbing is against the law. But I don't see police standing outside by the ATMs when I go withdraw money.
Again, irrelevant tangent is irrelevant anyways. Want to try again?
This is why a workable system of checks and balances must be in effect for both Government employees and private sectors so as to but the kibosh on corruption. Believe it or not there are still some Police and many former Police that believe in serving and protecting the people.
Wow you're arguing against your own point at this moment in time! It's hilarious! If there are police who believe in serving and protecting the people then why replace them? Highly illogical.
Btw, how do you propose a check and balance system for the private sector? Please, enlighten us.
At 11/20/14 10:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Fuck are you guy's really this dense LOL. If the Police turn on the people that line their fucking pockets guess what ... THEY DON'T GET PAID ! Unlike Government Stooges whom get paid not matter how terrible their performance may be.
Finally somewhat of an answer. Wasn't that hard, was it? Too bad this is still a horrible answer.
PMCs are paid by the highest bidder. Companies don't care about welfare of people, they care about profit, right? Right? Good. Companies can charge whatever they like because after all, we are in a "free market", right? So what happens when someone comes along with more money and outbids the government for the PMC contract, whose interests are not in the welfare of the people? Meanwhile, police and military are paid for through taxes and bonds and whatnot, so they are being paid by the people for the people. If the military were to kill the people they were supposed to protect, they wouldn't have any money because no one's paying them. So the argument of payments is invalid.
What stops the PMC from marching into your house, seizing your assets, and using that to pay for themselves? Again, NOTHING. what stops the government from doing that (at least theoretically)? Fourth Amendment!
Remember too, PMCs are made of mercenaries, not soldiers. They are in it for the money first and foremost. They do not have any incentive for the welfare of the people. I can't see how they are more effective for a national military force. For example, say we're in a battle zone, and we're taking enemy mortar fire. If I told a mercenary to move to the center of the battlefield so I could then pinpoint where the mortar fire is coming from (effectively using the mercenary as bait), like hell is that guy going to agree to that. "It's not worth the money, fuck that, I'm staying here."
Meanwhile, same scenario, but this time, a soldier. Same order. "Sure Sarge, just tell my mother I love her (or something else cheesy like that)". Yeah that soldier is scared, but it is his job to lay his life down on the line for his country. There's a sense of nationalism, something much more than money going on deep inside. I can't say the same for mercenaries.
At 11/20/14 09:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Implying that the Government is not bringing in the Cartels.
Irrelevance is irrelevant. Cartels have nothing to do with this. Next time, say something racist, that might be more relevant to your argument.
Since you seem to be physically incapable of answer my question (I was assuming you didn't have any hands, but since you are responding, this cannot be) I think we are done here you argument holds no water because, once again, you cannot rebut the following : in a closed thought experiment where there's no government, no Obama, no cartels, no Oath keepers, no nothing except a PMC, what prevents that PMC from turning on its own people it is supposed to protect? The answer is very clearly is nothing, otherwise you should have come up with a better response by now.
At this point I'm just going to assume you were dropped on your head (several times? You tell me) as a baby since you seem to either can't answer my question or won't. So, to continue using my baseball metaphor,
PULL HIM FROM THE GAME COACH
At 11/20/14 09:39 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers
Yeah, that's nice, but what about private military? What makes them have to follow Oath Keepers? And who says Oath Keepers can't be bought out? And how about our thought experiment in which there's no government, no Oath Keepers, no Obama, no anything, just a PMC in control. What prevents them from executing their own citizens they are supposed protect?
You didn't really answer anything here, just linked to an organization that, if anything, proves that the government military is being held responsible for their actions, opposed to a PMC which isn't necessarily held accountable.
Hey, remember Blackwater in Iraq? Man, they sure did a good job there, didn't they? So much better than the military, would you agree?
At 11/20/14 08:58 PM, Feoric wrote: His central point wasn't about COD you fucking idiot. Rebut this:
"what prevents a private army/police force from turning on its own citizens?"
Thank you, I meant to also put this in my post. You (leanlifter) haven't answered my first question: which is once again:
What prevent a private army/police force from turning on its own citizens?
Forget government, forget Obama, forget everything else. In a nutshell, what prevents PMCs from turning on its own people they are supposed to protect?
Until you answer that, no matter what else you say, you will not have any valid argument arguing for PMCs or private police force instead of a government military/police force.
At 11/20/14 08:09 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: What prevents Government from doing the same ?
As noted, checks and balances. Say a group of SEALS did decide to go rogue and kill US citizens. Then their commanding officer as well as themselves would be up for a military trial once captured (though in all honestly, you won't capture these guys, you'd have to kill). Never the less, this is system in place to negate the incentive to selfishness in the military as well as the police force. It may not be as transparent as you think, but it is there. Otherwise, why don't we have have more rogue units in the military/police force, going out and carving their own territories, a la Colonel Kurtz from Apocolypse Now?
And if the government did decide to kill its own citizens, it's clearly not of the people and thus the people would revolt. However, seeing currently that the US government at least it's committing mass murder against its own citizens, as well as a good chunk of First world countries following the same suit, I'd say your point is mute.
Do you guy's really think Government is some magical entity that creates some sort of mantra that transforms Human's into all knowing saints LOL.
What does this have to do with anything? Irrelevant tangent is irrelevantly. Government doesn't transform humanity, it places a system of checks and balances upon others so no one person obtains too much power.
Did you just skip out/sleep through your civics class? Or maybe you were just too dumb to get into in in the first place? Cause this is basic elementary school stuff kids. A third grader makes a better argument here than you.
0/10 for referring to a silly COD game LOL.
At least I gave an example, opposed to you. But since you graded me, let me grade you back. Golden rule right, treat others how you would like to be treated? Elementary school again? Is this coming back?
0/10 for effort, 0/10 for content, 0/10 for personality. 0-for-3 in today's game? BENCH HIM COACH
Case in point on why PMCs, or privatizing military or police forces in general for the public (I can't believe I'm using this as an example) : the campaign story from Call of Duty Advanced Warfare. (Yes, I did just use a Cod game as an example. No, I'm not sorry). In it, Kevin Spacey's huge PMC eventually because the main policing force of the world, but as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely, so obviously later Kevin Spacey becomes the bad guy and uses his massive private army to declare war on the world. Since there are few government militaries left he is fairly successful in his campaign.
Now granted, this is video game, but PMCs are in the benefit of the "free market" (which is a term I, and everybody else should use with the loosest connotation because with the exception of thought experiments there is no such thing as a free market in the real world) and they serve the same purpose as police, so tell me: what prevents a privatized police force from turning on its own population that it is supposed to protect? A government military has to answer to the government which is of the people for the people, no matter how cynical you are. A private force only has to answer to the company they work for, and since we're in a "free market", companies are only caring about one thing: maximizing profit. Otherwise, someone else would come along with a company that maximizes profit better and run the first one out of business.
So again I ask: what prevents a private army/police force from turning on its own citizens?
At 8/20/14 02:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So let's cut the defense budget so we can spend money on an immigration system that...will lead to more money being spent on immgirants when more of the become citizens. What a great idea!
How about let's poke a hole in all that defense budget as it's nearly 5% of our annual GDPand also because outside contracting done by the DoD is about 35% of their budgetor 650 billion dollars.
Cause you know, I'm pretty sure that's government waste right there, pork spending, you call it? And with that money, one could potentially invest in social programs that help immigrants and the immigration process to invest in new citizens, as they could help contribute positively to our economy. Furthermore, their children can group up in a potentially safer society and again, contribute to it.
Or do you not want to invest in the future? Oh that's right, you're too busy predicting the next general economic meltdown, which is like being a traffic reporter in LA and always saying, "Tomorrow there's gonna be no traffic": Yes, you may be right one day (out of like, ten years) but pretty much all the time you're wrong.
Get through printing presses warmed up Ms Yellen!
Wow, and you consider yourself economically versed? Oh my indeed. The Fed doesn't print money, the Treasury does.
And yes, because immigrant spending leads to more QE, that totally makes sense.
Um, what? QE is used in times of economic crisis as the Fed's main tool to battle unemployment. Immigration happens over long periods of time, especially over the course of history. Those time frames do not match up.
Unless, of course, you're implying that any influx of immigrants, no matter where they be or where they came from, have negative effects on the economy. If you were, I'd be laughing my ass off, because the notion is ridiculous in itself.
Yeah, Obama sucks.
We get it, conservatives have a black guy fetish. Let's move on here.
At 7/17/14 05:58 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: waaaaa
Get a job you damn economist.
So let's take 100 years of research and shove it out the window in favor of an ad hominem.
Yeah, I'm sure you're really popular with the academic and research community. Real popular.
I wonder why?
Ironically your rude behavior has proved Warforger's point even further: with responses like this, why the hell would economists subjugate themselves to stupid one line debates with imbeciles who don't even care or bother to read the material? It seems silly trying to explain what some people have dedicated their entire academic careers to for someone who won't even take the time to read the Wikipedia article on it.
Way to be open-minded for intellectual curiosity!
TL;DR version (because I know you didn't read a single word I just typed)
Don't come crying to economists when the world breaks. We'll only say we told you so and that you should have listened.
At 7/17/14 06:41 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Pedantry becomes you. Instead of saying we could export "skilled labor to China" or "corporate infrastructure to China" you decided to use "manufacturing labor to China"
This makes you stupid. Your continued defense of making a really dumb statement makes you a hack.
Except that it's entirely correct because of well, duh, comparative advantage, which, if you had actually sat and listened in your Macroeconomics class, you would know is one of the basis behind international trade and specializing certain industries in certain countries. But no one listens to the economists...................
Btw, if you want people to stop doing behavior, there's really only one way: you have to make the cost of doing that behavior ridiculous high, like a prison sentence or a tax. This is called a Pigovian tax,, which is exactly what Warforger is arguing with the gas tax. Want people to drive less? Tax the bejesus out of gas! Government gets revenue to pay off its deficit and debt, oil companies can't charge as high as a result of the tax (think big oil's going to put a massive premium on gas after a a stunt like this? Think of how much gas they sell, and then think again) there's less traffic, an increased movement towards public transportation (never a bad thing) and less car pollution. Simple idea, really, but once again, no one listens to the economists...................
At 6/18/14 04:48 PM, Korriken wrote: Personally, If I owned the Redskins, I would give the biggest "screw you" to the plaintiffs and change the mascot to a potato.
Sure, and while we're at it why don't you just have the Cleveland Indians serve curry at their ballpark and then they won't have to change their name either!
Come on, this blantant discrimination and highly probable that quite a few Native Americans (whatever tribe they might be) find these images and terms in our popular culture highly offensive. If we are to be a truly tolerant nation (which we certainly pride ourselves in being) then we have to remove these terms.
Otherwise, how would you like there to be the LA gooks? The Texas wetbacks? The jersey spics? The New Orleans Blackface? The Seattle Slit-eyes? The San Francisco Japs?
If you said yes to any one of those, you are extremely ignorant of cultural awareness .
Come on guys, can you see he's right? It's CLEARLY obvious that when your country lacks faith, Zeus and Athena come down from Mt. Olympus and gets pissed off, Athena turns half the country into newts (they get better) and Zeus chucks a lightening bolt at the Capital.
Oh, whoops, wrong church. Close enough though.
I really hope Dionysus comes down, at least we can all get drunk.
I think it's great that you're announcing your rebellion straight to the NSA and FBI.
See you in at least 18 months!
At 2/15/14 11:19 PM, Feoric wrote :
This makes a lot of sense in 101 but try telling this to people suffering from negative real wage growth.
It's funny, if you actually look at this graph and the two dates I used initially (1992 & 2012) you can see that real wage growth actually didn't really change much /if anything it rose. Furthermore, inflation is actually higher in 1992 than in 2012 , but I kind of see your point and I realize I should have rephrase what I said: inflation hits everybody equally, obviously the more you have the more you get by it, but also consider that people react to inflation and deflation differently too, right?
There's still a chunk load of variables here at play, don't get me wrong. I have no idea what those variables are or even how many there are, and that's one of the main problem of econ, right? We try to find the catch all solution for our problems when in fact you have some many other things to account for. I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, because honestly I couldn't tell you with 100% accuracy who's right and who's wrong when it comes to specific data like this. That's why we have our theories, cause it's something to fall back on.
At 2/15/14 10:54 PM, Feoric wrote: Think about each and every day you see an article about how ridiculous Congress is due to political impasses. Now picture that, but instead of an institution that passes legislation, you're dealing with an institution that enacts monetary policy. The founders saw the volatility and conflict of interest a mile away, which is why the Fed is officially "removed" from federal politiking.
How about we put it this way:
You know all those crazy abuses of power we've seen Congress use, even though they have no idea what's going on? Now imagine them getting their grubby power-hungry hands on the day-to-day aspects economy and tell me you think that's better than having the people who've studied markets for most of their lives run the day-to-day. Who has those Econ PhDs again? That's right, not Congress.
Long story short, get the government's grubby little hands away from the economy. If anything this is free market aspect that we don't have monetary policy and fiscal policy be the same. This is a free market ideal that we've adopt because it keeps power away from those who could abuse it the most to the most people's misfortunes.
Now, you can't blame the people at the Fed for making money off of this. Come on, if you study this type of thing for living you should be naturally able to be smart with your money. There's no such thing as a poor economists; you study markets for a living. Also, let's put it this way: say you are a pilot on a commercial airline. You see all of a sudden that the plane is going to crash for some awful reason beyond anybody's control. Are you going to warn everybody else on the plane? Of course, that's the morally and ethically the right thing to do. But before that, are you going to make sure you have a parachute? Damn straight, and no one would blame for looking and trying to find one. All things considering we all are in the same boat together, but let's not forget first and foremost we are talking about money and wealth here, so when anybody sees that they are about to lose a bunch of money and they can do something not to lose their wealth, you can bet your ass that they're going to try not lose their wealth in an act of self-preseravation. That's human nature, and unless you're going to change that (which you won't) this is how the system's going to work.
All right kids, time for some monetary econ. I've given you fair warning, now no bitching about how things might be complicated.
Basically, what this issue boils down to is whether or not you (as a country) want a fiat currency (like the US) or a fixed exchange rate (ala gold standard or the Euro). Now, as you can imagine, there are differences between the two, you can't run both (that's part of an central bank problem called the Trilemma which is very interesting and I'll avoid going into for the time being) and both have their advantages and disadvantages.
First, fiat currency. Well, the good news with fiat currency is that you can control your own money supply so you can control your own interest rates which can be important in times of booms and depressions. You can use monetary policy to soften depressions and rein in bubbles. The problem however is that you are going to incur transaction costs with whoever you're going to be trading with because, well, you have different currencies so that means a floating exchange rate. It certainly makes it harder to trade internationally.
Now, have a fixed exchange rate fixes this problem. Since the exchange rate is constant everybody always knows how to convert one currency into another, and so this can promote more trade in countries that are more similar to each other. For example, it made sense to create the Eurozone; there's so much trade internally between members of the EU for the sake of economics and business it made a certain (not all, but a lot) sense to create common currency, especially in that (relatively) small of a geographic region. However, because it's a fixed exchange rate, you don't have control over your money supply so if there are asymmetric shocks in the region some countries will end up paying for it even though they themselves didn't suffer the initial shock.
So, what do I recommend for Scotland? Well, as with all answers, it depends, mostly on what kind of internal structures and institutions Scotland already processes. If they think they do enough trade with Europe and want to further promote that by all means they should try to adopt the Euro. (Trying to convince the Germans to let them in is another question entirely, but let's ignore that for now). If they trade mostly with Britain they should remain on the pound, but that seems highly unlikely now. Running your own currency may sound like a good idea too but try to first get people to invest in the new currency and show that it's not going to falter. If you can do that then it might work, otherwise all things considering economically unless Scotland does enough trade with Europe they really shouldn't try to change their currency. It's not going to go well for them, at least in the short run. I mean, if they think they can survive that initial short run shock that'll happen then by all means they should, but for a lot of countries that shock can be deadly to the economy.
Excellent topic Camaro. I'm also going to hijack the topic a little to talk about economic theory and history, because it really does go hand and hand with the Consitution.
First off, I'm going to remind everybody for like the 50th time now, the Federal Resevrve does not print money. The Treausry does this, so yes in fact the government prints the money, not the central bank. In some ways, this seeks to emulate the idea of separation of powers, in this case a separation between monetary and fiscal policy. Why? Because simply put, giving the government the power of monetary policy is asking for economic abuse. For example, if the government could in theory control monetary policy a president could flood the market with money to make goods relatively cheap and poetically boost the economy right before an election. Long story short, we want to have a second group whose main incentive is not political gain. That's similarly why the Fed can freely control the amount of money in the market but can't control the totally amount of money: otherwise the central bank could effectively print off money to pay its debts. Now you may be wondering why the government doesn't do this already, and the reason is a) if the government were to do that the money would never reach the market because the Fed would immediately regulate such a large inflow of liquidity, and b) seignorage, which is effectively an inflation tax that we all pay for, and this could lead to hyperinflation and a great big load of other nasty things I'm not going to get into now.
So long story short, the Fed exists as the economic experts. I mean, look at Congress: do you think any of them have spent time analyzing markets and mathematical models? No: they wouldn't know the difference between the Phillips curve and a Phillips screwdriver. We have the smart people running the Fed for a reason: so the economy doesn't go crashing down in a horrible blaze of misery.
At 2/12/14 11:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because it states that Government is the only institution that is allowed to mint currency. If the Constitution was up to a matter of opinion then there is no use for it. Show me where in the constitution that is say's the Government can delegate or semi delegate the creation and issuance of currency using the Fed. Please don't try to play word games this time.
I think I'm going to keep track now of how many times I say this to you because it seems like I have to be at least in the 20s.
The government DOES print it's own money. That's what the Treasury does, and that's under the Executive branch. (Thanks, Geitner!) The Fed controls the amount of liquidity in the economy by issuing and buying bonds to set market interest rates and by doing so hopefully address both issues of inflation and unemployment. (Hi, Yellen!)
To put it methaphorically: imagine money (cash) is like a river. The Treasury is the waterfall where all the water comes from. The Fed is a dam: it can control how much water is being released below into the markets and how fast it can be released. In some cases (and sadly this is where my metaphor breaks down) the Fed actually takes back water, but in no way does the Fed control the creation of money.
No where in the Consitution does it say you can't charter a national bank by the way.............
At 2/1/14 06:55 PM, Feoric wrote: Not really. 1 dollar in 1992 has the same purchasing power as $1.66 in 2013. That's nearly 40% less purchasing power. Not that this is a problem -- inflation has been well within the Fed's target rate for a long time, but I wouldn't call it nil, especially over a period of 20+ years. Regardless, thanks for posting that raw data. It should be eye opening for a lot of people.
It's nil minimal in the sense that inflation is a raising tide that affects all boats: not just the ones at sea. Inflation in terms of wages is a bit of a joke measurement anyways, for the reasons I just described: the effects for comparing raw incomes percentiles are going to be minimal because we would expect to see the effect to truly hit in the truly upper percentiles. (Think of interest rates, obviously the more money you have in the bank the more interest you earn). While this can effect the raw data (again, mininmally because inflation never changes rapidly, at least not while the fed tries to have it under control) in terms of comparing the incomes it's like multiplying through by a constant. It doesn't really make a difference.
At 2/5/14 12:51 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Gay is not sexuality. Gay is a freak of nature and can also be caused by severe metal trauma and even retardation.
Metal trauma? So gay men have some sort of horrible experience with iron? "Oh no man, there's too much steel in this room right now, I'm now gay!"
Spell check is your friend kids.
Back to the topic at hand, is it sad that it happens? Yes. Can we do anything about it? Aside from putting more pressure on Russia, sadly no. We can hope Russia soon open her heart to all people, but that's a hippie pipe dream for the time being.
At 1/31/14 08:30 PM, Feoric wrote: Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?
Yes. (Though honestly inflation effects are nil minimal).
There's a lot of good data in that economic website. I highly encourage people to check out some of the raw economic data for themselves.
You know, maybe before everyone gets all huffed up, I wonder if we could find, say, a database where we could look at the incomes of various income percentiles and compare them on a year to year scale? I don't think such a database exists, oh wait.
So let's look at (in the United States of course) the top 10%, top 5%, top 1%, top 0.5%, top 0.1%, the top 0.01% and the bottom 90% average incomes from 1992 to 2012, giving us a good 20 year period to base our data on.
All I can say is wow. You want to see a concentration of wealth in the the top 1%? Here you go. These are average incomes for noted percentiles.
Top 10%
1992: 185,632
2012: 254,449
Change: 68,817
Top 5%
1992: 259,959
2012: 377,909
Change: 117,950
Top 1%
1992: 628,427
2012: 1,021,761
Change: 393,334
Top 0.5%
1992: 942,625
2012: 1,602,099
Change: 659,274
Top 0.1%
1992: 2,430,711
2012: 4,660,988
Change: 2,230,277
Top 0.01%
1992: 9,402,423
2012: 21,569,156
Change: 12,166,733
Bottom 90%
1992: 31,174
2012: 30,439
Change: -735 (!)
So yeah, the bottom 90% has actually dropped while the incomes of the top 1% has increased by more than a factor of 4/3..........not to mention the top 10% has only seen a raise of a factor of about 4/3s. (I'm eyeballing the ratios here, don't hold me to the actual number, but the conclusions themselves)
Point is, the top 1% has seen more gains in the past 20 years than any other income bracket. So I don't care if you're against income equality, but certainly we can together on hugely disproportional income classes, cause that's not how you run an economy kids. It's not going to flourish, it's going to be oppressive and not optimize social utility.
At 1/12/14 07:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In so many words you admit that the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes is tantamount to the issuance of debt.
Wrong. It gets paid out in bonds, which is not the issuance of notes, rather, a release of notes that wasn't available to the public before.
Imagine floodgates. The Fed controls whether water flows through and how much flows through but they do not control the amount of water total.
It does make perfect sense for even the Fed uses Religion as a scape goat "In God We Trust" LOL.
Again, it's clear here you have nothing to say, so you must not refute the point.
So once again illegitimate debt based fiat currency thanks for understanding this fact. Pouring gasoline on the fire does not help anything rather it's short term gain in exchange for long term problems.
Wow, not only way to jump to conclusions, but completely ignoring econ 101. You're trying to connect two concepts here that have very little to do with each other.
Again, your ignorance of the subject is amusing.
Again you have really not disagree with anything I have posted here rather in your opinion an immoral system is ripe for the plucking or so it would seem.
Once again, ignore my request for an explaination why said system stinks besides exploitation, but really anybody can exploit the system if you really want to think about it (which again, you clearly haven't)
Giving people a raise to offset a decreases in buying power due to inflation does not help anything as it does not increase production. Increased training and in turn production needs to scale 1:1 with inflation in order for the economy to not slide into recession or worse.
Bad news, that's happened already like a bigibillion (that's a made up word to express how big this number is) times already in the course of history and you don't see recessions over the map.
Well basing a currency in debt instead of something tangible is a big mistake that we will have to live through the consequences of soon enough.
So far nothing too bad has happens yet because of fiat currency hell, by most modern economists standards, it's because of fiat currency that we were able to offset a more major depression. But you wouldn't know that, living in a ditch and all.
And basically your point here is that you have no proof and until some horrible thing happens exactly the way you describe (which it won't, by the way, as anyone whose taken probability theory will tell you) you'll continue not to have proof? Good job old chap!
That's not value. That's ignorance and apathy of the masses to realize that this will all come to and end in a bad way if we don't stop the banksters.
Okay genius, what is value?
Even that phrase in itself is laughable. "Ignorance and apathy of the masses"-what, are you better than all of us now? Do you want to be king, is that it? Because you know all and seem more rational and logical? Sure sounds like it. Problem is, with economics, we assume people are already rational. Perhaps too rational maybe. (That's another topic for another day)
I am not an infidel as I believe in something of a high power and order in the universe. Some call it God but me I know it's something else call it nature if you will I don't care LOL.
You're laughing at your religion? You must not take it very seriously then. Wonder what that says about your other beliefs......
Fuck buttcoin LOL. The crypyocurrency market has been molested and corrupted by the very same problems we are discussing here.
You know it's okay to admit you were wrong to someone, you know that?
No I fault the charlatans that started this shit. Just because you can learn some of their tricks through the very educational system they sponsor and command does not make it moral or just.
Doesn't matter. Moral or justice? Look, while ethics are great (and don't get me wrong, they are great) when it comes to wealth, people naturally get head over heels. It's natural. Greed is good: it compels us to become better people. Look, I absolutely gurantee on a mass scale 99% of the world would rather be rich and have problems than be poor and have problems. That's just the way of the world, and whether you want to admit to yourself that or not is completely none of my business, but you must know this fact if you want to discuss economics.
At 1/12/14 06:07 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So let's go back and highlight my point in that the focus was Government in debt with Banks like the people are...
The government doesn't owe a debt to the banks. It's public debt, paid out to people (most whom happen to be in the financial industry). Nothing shady here. You want to own public debt? Go ahead! Invest in it! Not going to make a lot on the return, but it's a fairly stable interest rate.
Apparently I understand more about the truth than you do. You were propagandized to believe that Bankers monetary policy and in turn currency is to be honored and upheld without question just like God LOL.
So your response is: "Haha I have no idea what to say to this, I've done no research, so I must insult you."
Yeah, that flies really well.
Oh the Fed does not create currency Federal Reserve Notes are not currency just a derivative of nothing aka a magic piece of paper called a bond LOL.
All it means is that it is accepted by the Federal Reserve Bank as a unit of currency for a bond. And yes, technically speaking, all money is a derivative, that's what the definition of an interest rate is and his you derive them. It's because of these interests rates that people invest too.
And again, you've yet to say what bad about this. All you've done is stomp your feet but you haven't said why.
Oh so you just replaced the word inflation with expansion how convenient LOL.
Yes, because as any economist worth their salt would know, the Philips curve says there's a trade off between inflation and unemployment., the Fed can do something about that in the short term.
97% the value of the dollar before the fed took over in 1913.
I've heard that number before, but that's in terms of the price of gold. What you don't realize is that one of the reasons for the declining value of the dollar versus gold is well, no one uses the gold standard any more, for a wide variety of reasons I've already stated.
The value of the dollar is just fine. Can you go out and pay for your groceries? Yes? Then the value of the currency is fine!
Not how I act and I am doing fine. Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." King James Version.
Pulling the "holier than thou" approach? For someone I thought was atheist, surely you can do better.
Hey I don't see you getting off your computer: your computer is a form of money if you want to think about it. At least a tool of money, you can't debate that. Guess your not as holy as you thought.
ROTHSCHILDS BROS. OF LONDON
"Those few who can understand the system (check book money and credit) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it favors, that there will be little opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear it burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."
Actually, if you wanted to classify me (which would be hilarious in itself) you'd shoved me with the rich elites, because if anything I myself am proof that the system works just fine. You want to understand how the market works? Study it! If you study markets, you're going to naturally take advantage of the situation. Are you going to fault academics for that?
At 1/12/14 04:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
So first rule of argument is apparently ignoring the other person's points? What are we, Catholics?
Let's get one thing straight the Government is every bit in Debt with the Banks as the people it was supposed to protect
Fed doesn't run a debt. It runs a balance sheet, like every other company. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Government stopped the regulation of currency when the Fed took over in the early 1900s.
They stopped using monetary policy as fiscal policy is what happened and handed it off to a central bank (which, is presumedly run by your smartest bankers in which you can appoint up but ultimately have not much power over the day to day stuff because hey, what the hell do you know about the economy?)
You can say it was for this reason or that that the Fed took over monetary creation and issuance
They don't create money, how many times do we have to say this? They can issue bonds to sell for cash (liquidity) and then holds on to that cash. If they want to do the opposite they buy bonds with that cash.
There's no create or issuance of money. Just expansion.
however since then the American Dollar has devalued over 97%.
Where are you getting that number? Devalued 97% in terms of what? What measurement are you holding that number to? Its a shady number to me.
Once again whom ever has the power to control and create currency has the power to subjugate and oppress whole nations.
Stop trying to be mysterious and deep. It's not that complicated. People get motivated by wealth. And why not? It's a great motivator. And when it's all said and done, that's how people are ultimately going to act.
