Fuck me. Is he even American, do I have to apologise?
You know what fuck it, I won't. You sent us Joe Cassano, we sent you the Beckhams, Piers Morgan and this prick. Our retaliation wasn't strong enough, I'll see what else I have in the back... Can I interest you in a TalkSport personality...?
@jjjbot1 "Worse, the inflation tax is very regressive"
I'm not so sure. Inflation is bad for creditors or people sitting on mounds of cash. Most poor people are in debt. Or if not in debt, they spend all their money on rent, food, etc. And beginning in the 80's, because of lagging wages, people increasingly turned to new credit "products" to provide additional income.
People with negative net worth actually *benefit* from currency inflation, it reduces their debt burden.
@jjjbot1 "RP [said] If we still had [gold] standard gas would be $.1"
I see this as blatant demagoguery. Wages (paid in US$) also grow, not just prices. The important question is: How much purchasing power does the average person's income provide *at a given point in time*?
Over the past 30 years, we've seen workers' wages stagnating; most new income has gone to the very top. But this isn't because we dropped off gold. It's because the rentiers have increasingly taken over our political system.
@jstncbllr those pressures don't seem as bad as the pressures created by the current system. RP made an interesting comment in the debate tonight, arguing gas cost only 10c (using a pre65 silver dime). If we still had our commodity standard, gas would be .1 USD. That's amazing to me. Who got to print the new money over all these years? Who did that benefit? Not me. Worse, the inflation tax is very regressive. Rich can usually protect their assets with good investments; poor can't.
@jjjbot1 On the topic of money, I've recently been reading these:
bit. ly/qHKqSk
bit. ly/pDQEpx
Also the paper "Hierarchy of Money" by S Bell is quite good.
Obviously I find the Chartalist viewpoint more persuasive than the Metallist one. Money being a "thing" accepted to cancel a debt owed. Not something that you hoard for its intrinsic value. It's the social aspect that's the crux of it.
People can use whatever they like for money. The trick is getting it accepted. The reason $US is accepted is because *we all* have a tax burden that must be paid in $US (or in "bank money" (ie numbers in your account that the gov't will simply debit)).
But, why set a fixed exchange rate to any commodity or other currency? We'd be subject to external pressures on the commodity or to bond market attacks. See Greece. See world in great depression.
Sort of. In practice, the loans come first, and banks deal with reserve management separately, and after the fact. Reserves are not *directly* lent out.
Reserve reqs aren't very useful in a modern economy; in fact, a number of western countries no longer have them. *Capital* requirements are more crucial. It was, in no small part, the broken regulatory regime for banks' capital assets that allowed the mortgage crisis to happen.
to say, youre not saying that he cant win,but that he wont win, is double speak.
or maybe I should go to room 101 to get my head straightened out.
clydrobe 4 months ago
it dealt with group rights, undermining individual rights.
thats why it was unconstitutional.
clydrobe 4 months ago
Fuck me. Is he even American, do I have to apologise?
You know what fuck it, I won't. You sent us Joe Cassano, we sent you the Beckhams, Piers Morgan and this prick. Our retaliation wasn't strong enough, I'll see what else I have in the back... Can I interest you in a TalkSport personality...?
justnotcricket 5 months ago
@jjjbot1 "Worse, the inflation tax is very regressive"
I'm not so sure. Inflation is bad for creditors or people sitting on mounds of cash. Most poor people are in debt. Or if not in debt, they spend all their money on rent, food, etc. And beginning in the 80's, because of lagging wages, people increasingly turned to new credit "products" to provide additional income.
People with negative net worth actually *benefit* from currency inflation, it reduces their debt burden.
jstncbllr 5 months ago
@jjjbot1 "RP [said] If we still had [gold] standard gas would be $.1"
I see this as blatant demagoguery. Wages (paid in US$) also grow, not just prices. The important question is: How much purchasing power does the average person's income provide *at a given point in time*?
Over the past 30 years, we've seen workers' wages stagnating; most new income has gone to the very top. But this isn't because we dropped off gold. It's because the rentiers have increasingly taken over our political system.
jstncbllr 5 months ago
@jstncbllr those pressures don't seem as bad as the pressures created by the current system. RP made an interesting comment in the debate tonight, arguing gas cost only 10c (using a pre65 silver dime). If we still had our commodity standard, gas would be .1 USD. That's amazing to me. Who got to print the new money over all these years? Who did that benefit? Not me. Worse, the inflation tax is very regressive. Rich can usually protect their assets with good investments; poor can't.
jjjbot1 5 months ago
@jjjbot1 On the topic of money, I've recently been reading these:
bit. ly/qHKqSk
bit. ly/pDQEpx
Also the paper "Hierarchy of Money" by S Bell is quite good.
Obviously I find the Chartalist viewpoint more persuasive than the Metallist one. Money being a "thing" accepted to cancel a debt owed. Not something that you hoard for its intrinsic value. It's the social aspect that's the crux of it.
A pleasure commenting w/ you. Cheers!
jstncbllr 5 months ago
@jjjbot1"people...able to opt out...us[e] gold"
People can use whatever they like for money. The trick is getting it accepted. The reason $US is accepted is because *we all* have a tax burden that must be paid in $US (or in "bank money" (ie numbers in your account that the gov't will simply debit)).
But, why set a fixed exchange rate to any commodity or other currency? We'd be subject to external pressures on the commodity or to bond market attacks. See Greece. See world in great depression.
jstncbllr 5 months ago
@jjjbot1 "banks...loan out...up to...reserve req."
Sort of. In practice, the loans come first, and banks deal with reserve management separately, and after the fact. Reserves are not *directly* lent out.
Reserve reqs aren't very useful in a modern economy; in fact, a number of western countries no longer have them. *Capital* requirements are more crucial. It was, in no small part, the broken regulatory regime for banks' capital assets that allowed the mortgage crisis to happen.
jstncbllr 5 months ago
@jstncbllr nvm on the links, i didn't recognized the url at first, will definitely check them out, thanks
jjjbot1 5 months ago