Ominous prediction indeed.

[Sean Renaud]

Not only do market sectors not move in tandem so that your hypothetical would never happen, if it did it would be a HUGE opportunity to ramp up production of whatever it is that you do, make, produce, ship or package. in short order some product or service would materialize to fill demand.

There is always a substitute you can spend your money on.

First, only in magical stories is that true. But fine since you are insisting on being an ignorant mule lets ask it a different way.

If we were to return to the gold standard which ended in 1933 under FDR and the dollar had it's same value which (according to this app so if you wanna call me on it fine) was one dollar then is worth 18.31 today. Do you think we'd still be paying 3.00 a gallon for gas or 75 cents?

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, because you are a totalitarian and absolutist, mostly illegal is only illegal if you have no one in power to back you up. You don't mind a lot of illegal when it benefits republicans, you didn't mind it when our troops in Iraq broke laws and killed illegally, you didn't mind breaking our laws to interrogate prisoners. But here it's "The law is the law".

Give me your plan to secure our border. We have 6000 miles of land border and 12000 miles of coastline.

Making employers pay dearly will only shutter doors and kill jobs entirely. Unless you plan to have a government office of confiscated businesses to sell back to 'good guys', it simply won't work.

nice bit of sophistry in the "beagle's" paragraph, but no truth.

So how many policemen, border agents and INS agents does your enforcement plan require?

Of course we need a revamped immigration code, everyone knows it, but it won't start with "Everyone go home" - and you should know that.

Totalitarian? How droll. But I suppose that you needed at least two pejoratives to make your accusation stronger.

To the 'absolute" accusation I plead guilty. I absolutely believe in the rule of law, unlike the current administration which in many cases is more guilty in the overlooking than in the observance.

I also absolutely believe that the role of government is to secure the citizenry from external enemies be they belligerent states or illegal aliens. I believe that the constitution tends to support that particular brand of 'absolutism.' (See 'Rule of Law" in the previous paragraph.)

I also believe that civil disobedience is a legitimate means of the citizenry to express displeasure with an unjust law. But if citizens of a foreign nation want to engage in civil disobedience re. US law, let them do it in their own nation. If they do it here, round them up and ship them out.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

I've never once heard Ish scream out to shut down GITMO so absolute rule of law? Dont' make me laugh.

 

[Que]

First, only in magical stories is that true. But fine since you are insisting on being an ignorant mule lets ask it a different way.

If we were to return to the gold standard which ended in 1933 under FDR and the dollar had it's same value which (according to this app so if you wanna call me on it fine) was one dollar then is worth 18.31 today. Do you think we'd still be paying 3.00 a gallon for gas or 75 cents?

You cannot allow a currency to float untethered and then suddenly whipsaw it back to the terms under which it was at the time.

Today gold is lets say $1500 an ounce-ish. That means a coin made out of gold the size of a silver dollar is worth $1500. What used to be a $5 coin is 1/10 of an ounce and it is worth today, $150.

There is a multiple of what gold and silver historically play off each other ...I dunno what it is...but it is sound based on the relative difficulty in extracting gold versus silver from the ground.

No one today would walk around with a pocket full of gold coins unless you were car-shopping.

They would use silver. Gasoline would cost under 25c a gallon (in silver) at present. I paid the equivalent of 2 silver dimes the other day.

We would not need to walk around with either. Our bank balances would reflect how much actuall money we had and transfers would be effected by debit card, just as now.

When you got your paycheck, it would be in sterling silver redeemable or gold redeemable. No one would redeem for gold or silver unless they wished to make discreet, untraceable transactions.

In my State minimum wage is (stupidly) tied to a (government calculated and easily manipulated) cost of living formula.

January it goes to $8 in a state with pretty low cost of living. Much more "liveable" than say, Seattle or New York or San Fransisco even at $150 an hour...

In my scheme you would still be paid 8 "Dollars" for each hour worked but since there are $4 in every pre-1964 (and post 2015) "quarter" you would receive 50 cents per hour in the sense you would receive the banking equivalent of 1/2 oz of silver per hour worked. and 8 hour day yields you 16 quarters, or four shiny silver dollars.

After a week or two it would be painfully obvious you are not making $64 a day, but $4 and people would stop doing the unnecessary conversions and minimum wage would be 50c (silver) per hour.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You could have shortened that to Sean you were right and I'm just trying to be a dick because that's what Conservatives do.

 

[PayDay]

Apparently diversity is a community issue instead of a political issue:
http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/11/10/northern-virginia-diversity-race/18079525/

But this rapid growth in diversity hasn't arrived without consequences or controversy. Residents have been grappling with everything from a controversial policy to stop illegal immigration in Prince William to a housing squeeze that has pushed thousands of minority families out of Arlington. Fairfax wrestles with finding the funds to teach ever more students who are poorer and need added language training.

"People were not ready and did not know how to handle the change," says Qian Cai, director of the Demographics Research Group at the University of Virginia. "But you have to know change is coming, so be prepared and plan for it. … As the white population ages, the younger generation will be multicultural, multiracial. That is just a demographic fact."

I this thread. So ... much.... info...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You dig, you pan, in a pinch you create it. And thats if you need to inflate the SUPPLY and not the VALUE. You inflate the value simply by saying you now need two pounds to pay for an apple isntead of one.

I think everybody benefits from inflation. Of course Wall Street is making money, that's what they do and have always done and will always do. That is just what the rich do. There are ways to stop them if you're interested but people aren't really interested in that and with good reason for the most part.

You could NEVER save money without losing ground in the grand scheme of things. That has nothing to do with the government creating money.

I'm getting to making that point I need to know what you think money is or rather represents first. It's important to explaining why money needs to continually inflate.

Actually, I already addressed your first point with the law of marginal utility.

The poor certainly do not benefit from inflation. You need to tell me not that Wall Street will always cash in, but how the poor and the Middle Class are cashing in on inflation. If inflation was in check, then savings is a conscious decision to not spend now in anticipation of a premium in the future. Savings lead to lending and lending leads to an increasing Capital as business anticipates future spending.

I have told you what money is. It is a medium of exchange. In the short-term, in can be wheat, but wheat spoils or is eaten, so wheat is not conducive to savings or Capital. Gold cannot spoil and it cannot be consumed, it can be recycled times innumerable. Money, too is a medium of exchange, as you put it, an IOU, but one in which the supply is limitless, therefore, by the simple expedient of artificial inflation, it can be rendered worthless whereas gold cannot.

You already ceded the point that money must inflate when you acknowledged that prices would adjust to the money supply, i.e., that they must deflate when actual Capital is increased by gains in productivity and Capital investment.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good Lord...



She's gone full-on Socialist.

 

[RobDownSouth]

*peeks into thread*
Have the gold bugs shown up yet?
Yup.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Actually, I already addressed your first point with the law of marginal utility.

The poor certainly do not benefit from inflation. You need to tell me not that Wall Street will always cash in, but how the poor and the Middle Class are cashing in on inflation. If inflation was in check, then savings is a conscious decision to not spend now in anticipation of a premium in the future. Savings lead to lending and lending leads to an increasing Capital as business anticipates future spending.

I have told you what money is. It is a medium of exchange. In the short-term, in can be wheat, but wheat spoils or is eaten, so wheat is not conducive to savings or Capital. Gold cannot spoil and it cannot be consumed, it can be recycled times innumerable. Money, too is a medium of exchange, as you put it, an IOU, but one in which the supply is limitless, therefore, by the simple expedient of artificial inflation, it can be rendered worthless whereas gold cannot.

You already ceded the point that money must inflate when you acknowledged that prices would adjust to the money supply, i.e., that they must deflate when actual Capital is increased by gains in productivity and Capital investment.

The middle class are benefiting because for they are making more money. It's obviously not as great for them as it is for the top tier but whatever.

Okay, it's an IOU that is ultimately actually used to purchase time and energy from other human beings. The time they spent harvesting, building, whatever.

Each time a new human being enters the world the amount of human time and energy is increased. The same is true whenver a new innovation allows us to do things faster, easier etc etc. Which devalues the time and energy of the existing people on the planet.

Inflation. NATURAL FUCKING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE.

I didn't cede the point, that was my entire point. That capital inflates and deflates naturally based on supply and demand. It's not something our government does to us, it's something that happens.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The middle class are benefiting because for they are making more money. It's obviously not as great for them as it is for the top tier but whatever.

Okay, it's an IOU that is ultimately actually used to purchase time and energy from other human beings. The time they spent harvesting, building, whatever.

Each time a new human being enters the world the amount of human time and energy is increased. The same is true whenver a new innovation allows us to do things faster, easier etc etc. Which devalues the time and energy of the existing people on the planet.

Inflation. NATURAL FUCKING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE.

I didn't cede the point, that was my entire point. That capital inflates and deflates naturally based on supply and demand. It's not something our government does to us, it's something that happens.

No they are not. Median wage is stagnant.

Birth is not a natural addition to Capital. It is a demand on consumption. If what you were saying is true, no third world country would be starving to death; they have high birth rates.

Capital only increases with real productivity gains. That is not inflation. Inflation is an increase in money supply independent of Capital creation. Inflation is not a natural fucking force force of the universe. That is known as fucking nonsense.

 

[PayDay]

Good Lord...



She's gone full-on Socialist.

Dudes got me stuck at post #461.

I don't know whether to respond or kill myself or feel sorry for him. It's the most anti American thing I have ever read.

 

[Que]

The middle class are benefiting because for they are making more money. It's obviously not as great for them as it is for the top tier but whatever.

Okay, it's an IOU that is ultimately actually used to purchase time and energy from other human beings. The time they spent harvesting, building, whatever.

Each time a new human being enters the world the amount of human time and energy is increased. The same is true whenver a new innovation allows us to do things faster, easier etc etc. Which devalues the time and energy of the existing people on the planet.

Inflation. NATURAL FUCKING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE.

I didn't cede the point, that was my entire point. That capital inflates and deflates naturally based on supply and demand. It's not something our government does to us, it's something that happens.

The middle class in absolute terms is not making more money. The left and the right argue about why that is, and what to do about it but it is clear that the so called middle class (however you define that) is shrinking and getting poorer in terms of purchasing power and in terms of assets as a function of their income.

We (the country left and right) hid that with an artificial inflationary bubble in what was a substantial asset group- real estate as held by individuals for their own private use.

Whether people directly borrowed against it or did so through unsecured loans that were tacitly tied to home values because it was part of your bottom line, people were able to spend beyond their actual incomes as if that borrowed money was actual income.

When that came to a shuddering halt, the actual incomes people have to live within is strikingly apparent.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The middle class in absolute terms is not making more money. The left and the right argue about why that is, and what to do about it but it is clear that the so called middle class (however you define that) is shrinking and getting poorer in terms of purchasing power and in terms of assets as a function of their income.

We (the country left and right) hid that with an artificial inflationary bubble in what was a substantial asset group- real estate as held by individuals for their own private use.

Whether people directly borrowed against it or did so through unsecured loans that were tacitly tied to home values because it was part of your bottom line, people were able to spend beyond their actual incomes as if that borrowed money was actual income.

When that came to a shuddering halt, the actual incomes people have to live within is strikingly apparent.

More than they would without the inflation. We are talking about a single topic here.

The inflation was neither hidden nor artificial. Holy shit. It's literally a natural state of the world.

The borrowed money thing is an interesting point however. And true.

 

[PayDay]

Posterity Link:

'Energy Drinks Are The Work Of Satan'

from here:
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1109691

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dudes got me stuck at post #461.

I don't know whether to respond or kill myself or feel sorry for him. It's the most anti American thing I have ever read.

Jesus H. Christ but that was one helluva manifesto...

I feel like Rodney Dangerfield responding to Sam Kinneson.

He's passionate, about what, I have no idea.

 

[Que]

More than they would without the inflation. We are talking about a single topic here.

The inflation was neither hidden nor artificial. Holy shit. It's literally a natural state of the world.

The borrowed money thing is an interesting point however. And true.

No...LESS than they would, absent inflation.

Inflation erodes purchasing power faster than it inflates wages. Always.

 

[kbate]

Totalitarian? How droll. But I suppose that you needed at least two pejoratives to make your accusation stronger.

To the 'absolute" accusation I plead guilty. I absolutely believe in the rule of law, unlike the current administration which in many cases is more guilty in the overlooking than in the observance.

I also absolutely believe that the role of government is to secure the citizenry from external enemies be they belligerent states or illegal aliens. I believe that the constitution tends to support that particular brand of 'absolutism.' (See 'Rule of Law" in the previous paragraph.)

I also believe that civil disobedience is a legitimate means of the citizenry to express displeasure with an unjust law. But if citizens of a foreign nation want to engage in civil disobedience re. US law, let them do it in their own nation. If they do it here, round them up and ship them out.

Ishmael

You're the guys tossing, communist, leftist, socialist, statist, and a dozen other inane terms about in order to make everyone you don't agree with an enemy of the world.

You didn't believe in the absolute rule of law when it dealt with our military, intelligence services or anything you considered, "National Security"; for those you decided that law was hindering safety and should be set aside. If I search your Lit history, even in the limited search available, you know I'd find dozens if not hundreds of times when you felt the "Law" wasn't the "law". But on this, of course because it's republican policy - ITS THE LAW!

Your plan is still, "Send them Home". Great. And if they don't go? Imprison, shoot, truck to border and drop off?

You are still missing the "how do we secure 18,000 miles of border part.
The great wall of Mexico? Landmines and anti-shipping mines?

You also need to go explain to AJ what a socialist is. He keeps using that term and hasn't got a clue as to what it means. I haven't laid out a single one of my own political opinions or beliefs in this thread, but somehow disagreeing with yours or asking for explanation of your plan, is socialist now.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No...LESS than they would, absent inflation.

Inflation erodes purchasing power faster than it inflates wages. Always.

First, not really, but more to the point they wouldn't be making money at all.

 

[PayDay]

Prediction:

Post #8 from this thread: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1109635

The Democrats need a (relative) cleanskin, from outa Washington, but the Republicans will be praying they nominate HRC.

The Republicans will portray her as having the competance of Obama, the moral compass of her husband and the experience of Jimmy Carter.

It's going to be Biden, he'd fit considering the last election and this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-strategy-obama-angrily-cut-biden_818457.html

President Obama and Vice President Biden might not see eye-to-eye on immigration strategy. A hint of an apparent disagreement was on display during Obama's lunch with congressional leaders on Friday at the White House.

"The meeting was tense at times, according to a senior House Republican aide. The aide was not authorized to describe the back-and-forth publicly by name and spoke only on condition of anonymity," the Associated Press reports.

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, about to lose his grip on the upper chamber, barely said a word. The aide said at one point as House Speaker John Boehner was making an argument on immigration, Obama responded that his patience was running out and Vice President Joe Biden interrupted to ask how long Republicans needed.*Obama angrily cut Biden off

As long as he doesn't foot to mouth too often from now on he'll get the ticket. He's in the perfect "I work with him and he hates me" position.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

Interventionism may refer to:

Interventionism (politics) is a political term for significant activity undertaken by a state to influence something not directly under its control. It is an act of military, economical intervention that is aimed for international order, or for the benefit of the country. Antonym: Non-interventionism.

Economic interventionism is any activity in a market economy, beyond the basic regulation of fraud, undertaken by a central government in an effort to affect a country's economy.

It's just a matter of degree you bat-guano crazy humorless bitch.

 

[Que]

Dudes got me stuck at post #461.

I don't know whether to respond or kill myself or feel sorry for him. It's the most anti American thing I have ever read.

It isn't anti-American. It is indoctrinated-American. The opinions expressed are common in the majority of people that have secondary education and the vast majority of those that have post-secondary education. (Save for Economists, Mathematicians, and Actuaries)

It goes back to the age old idea that government can positively influence an economy as long as it's motives are pure. Without regard to actual market forces or what real humans do when you put some "English" on the ball.

The only "economists" that believe any of that are the very ones being indoctrinated themselves and then teaching those insipid econ-101 courses to liberal arts majors.

No one anywhere applies that sort of faulty logic to making multimillion dollar business decisions about the allocation of capital.

 

[PayDay]

Jesus H. Christ but that was one helluva manifesto...

I feel like Rodney Dangerfield responding to Sam Kinneson.

He's passionate, about what, I have no idea.

Right on. That's the problem, I don't know how to respond to it, because the context is all over the place. Other than to hate on America, I dunno what the point of it is.

 

[kbate]

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

Interventionism may refer to:

Interventionism (politics) is a political term for significant activity undertaken by a state to influence something not directly under its control. It is an act of military, economical intervention that is aimed for international order, or for the benefit of the country. Antonym: Non-interventionism.

Economic interventionism is any activity in a market economy, beyond the basic regulation of fraud, undertaken by a central government in an effort to affect a country's economy.

It's just a matter of degree you bat-guano crazy humorless bitch.

That shows me you understand, 'how to google' and have passed 'C&P 101', not that you have any idea what it states.

Now show me where I've stated what I believe. Arguing against what you believe isn't stating what I believe.

You may not take humour from this exercise, but I (and others) definitely are doing so.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Right on. That's the problem, I don't know how to respond to it, because the context is all over the place. Other than to hate on America, I dunno what the point of it is.

It's part of the inflating universe.