 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:46:01 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
>> over the last 8 years.
>
> Yeah. My understanding is that those aren't really law, but just
> instructions to the executive branches which enforce the law.
>
> In other words, it's like the police chief saying "We know it's legal to
> have a peaceful protest, but I want you to go out and arrest protesters
> anyway." He's not making laws. He's just enforcing his own will.
>
> Not unlike the courts, except that's their *job*.
>
> At least as I understand it.
That could be - I've not read a lot about it, maybe time to do some more
reading. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> Maybe if the parties made more sense, I'd be able to pick one and stick to
> it. The way things are, though, I usually just pick the candidate that's
> going to do the least amount of damage.
That's what is apparently the general thing in the US now. People are voting
the candidate they hate the least...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
>> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
>> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
>
> Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
> took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
> government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
> eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
> those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
> advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
> regulate the economy in the first place.
>
Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when every
state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own money,
and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept it..
Sorry, but no. For a system to function you need a stable basis for the
system not 50 different interpretations of what that "basis" should be.
At one time, that was a gold standard, and some countries still, sort
of, operate off it. But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the
world to support, never mind back, the number of transactions that
actually take place in the modern world. Moving away from that as a
standard, to currency itself being the standard, **helped** growth. You
know what has hurt growth in the US? Two things:
1) exceptionalism. The idiot belief that America is the best at
everything, and always will be, which has left companies like Ford and
the rest *fighting* the Asian automakers to this day, most recently by
selling shit pickups and Hummers, and other gas guzzling scrap piles,
when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
streamlined, was the future.
2) anti-intellectualism. Its now insanely common to hear idiots in the
press and government babbling about the "elitists" that don't "feel"
right about anything, so must be "wrong" because they use facts, logic
and science to find solutions, instead of gut reactions, traditional
thinking, and a persistent belief that nothing can go wrong, because,
see #1.
The former blinds us to the fact that the only places that are bigger
hell holes than the US when it comes to violence, bigotry, poor medical
coverage, poor economic growth, bad education and unemployment is...
places like the Middle East, and third world countries. Its just ***not
possible*** for the average American to admit that the US is turning
into a third world country, and when they do, they blame gays,
terrorist, atheists (since you can't safely blame blacks or Jews any
more), or "liberalism" (never mind the fact that most of the world takes
one look at what we call liberals and asks, "Wait? Why are the
conservatives attacking other conservatives over not being conservative
enough?). The later is why people don't "stay" in the US as much any
more, after getting an education, why BS like 'No Child Left
less-Behind' gets cheers, while suggesting we teach critical thinking
and problem solving actually, in one case I know of, got the parent
chewed out for "Teaching their kid, instead of letting the school do it,
since all the questions they asked, and their demand for **real**
information and explanations for things was **disruptive**."
The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that being
smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big words,
makes you a pariah and untrustworthy. Even if we closed every over seas
manufacturing plant, reopened every US business that used to make stuff
here and then started hiring workers to fill the positions, we would
have to ship people in from half the rest of the world to "find" enough
people that know the difference between silicon gel and silicon chips,
never mind had a damn clue what the hell the difference made.
And the companies know this, which is one reason why, recently, as of
like last year, the major car manufactures in the US flat out stated,
"We are moving much of our operations to Canada, because in recent years
we simply can't find enough people in the US that are knowledgeable
enough when hired to do the job, and those we have hired tend, for the
most part, to be **untrainable**."
When the business world has no resources other than the same idiots that
take out 16 credit cards, then try to use them to pay off each other, to
hire in the first place, it hardly matters what the companies *or* the
government does, the result is going to have more in common with the
movie Idiocracy, than with Libertarianism.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when every
> state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own money,
> and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept it..
Um, no. Every bank printed its own money, and gold worked everywhere.
Why do you think there were gold rushes?
Now we have only one bank printing money, and the only reason it's
accepted everywhere is because we have lots of gund. See Iceland for a
counterexample. Why again is this good?
> At one time, that was a gold standard, and some countries still, sort
> of, operate off it.
You know, it worked between countries a thousand years ago. The only
reason to get *off* of a gold standard is if you *want* to counterfeit
money. It's perfectly possible to devalue money without leaving a
hard-metal standard - how many pounds of sterling silver can you buy
with a British Pound Sterling today?
> But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the
> world to support, never mind back, the number of transactions that
> actually take place in the modern world.
Bull. You don't need the actual gold. You just need your money to be
worth something universal and impossible to counterfeit. What does it
matter if an ounce of gold is worth $100,000?
I'm not suggesting that carrying around gold is a good way to do
business. I'm merely pointing out that the Great Depression happened a
decade or more after people stopped backing money with gold.
> Moving away from that as a
> standard, to currency itself being the standard, **helped** growth.
Perhaps. Until people stop believing in money. Then you get the Great
Depression.
> when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
> the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
> streamlined, was the future.
Except the Japanese like to buy big gas-guzzling Ford pickup trucks too.
:-) Plus, CAFE helped there a whole bunch.
> 2) anti-intellectualism.
Yep.
> The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that being
> smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big words,
> makes you a pariah and untrustworthy.
In many ways, yes. Altho I'm not sure what this has to do with monetary
policy. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:55:37 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> That's what is apparently the general thing in the US now. People are
> voting the candidate they hate the least...
That's been going on here for some time. This year, I finally get to
vote *for* someone rather than *against* someone.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Oh, yes, things where so much better back in colonial times, when
>> every state, or even county, and sometimes cities, printed their own
>> money, and you never knew if the next place you landed in would accept
>> it..
>
> Um, no. Every bank printed its own money, and gold worked everywhere.
> Why do you think there were gold rushes?
>
> Now we have only one bank printing money, and the only reason it's
> accepted everywhere is because we have lots of gund. See Iceland for a
> counterexample. Why again is this good?
>
Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>. With one single
currency you don't get that BS. And... Just to be clear, if all this
regulation, and taxation, and money based on pure money stuff is so bad,
why is it **only** the US, and countries filled with corrupt dictators,
which are currently screwed in health care, cost of living,
unemployment, etc.? See, its the inconsistency between "these things are
bad", but, "The use does them less than anyone else, but has had
**three** economic depressions, counting this one.", that just...
doesn't jibe.
>> But there just isn't enough fracking gold in the world to support,
>> never mind back, the number of transactions that actually take place
>> in the modern world.
>
> Bull. You don't need the actual gold. You just need your money to be
> worth something universal and impossible to counterfeit. What does it
> matter if an ounce of gold is worth $100,000?
>
How the hell is not having anything you "can" exchange for it, just
imaginary stuff, which you could "in theory" trade for it, then what the
heck is the difference from the current form again?
>> Moving away from that as a standard, to currency itself being the
>> standard, **helped** growth.
>
> Perhaps. Until people stop believing in money. Then you get the Great
> Depression.
>
And, if people stop believing in gold, same thing. Money is *not* gold,
it has been, and always was, a bit of paper that said, "in theory, this
will buy X". It doesn't matter if that is gold or rock, as long as
someone things there is some value to rocks. If they either a) decide
they don't need your rocks, b) decide you don't have the gold to back
your "claims" of how much their money is worth, or c) something else is
worth more to them. Removing such a stupid standard means the value is
based on what it really was in the first place, trust that you can spend
it, and get something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
>> when we should have been paying attention to the fact that the rest of
>> the world figured out 20 years ago that small, efficient and
>> streamlined, was the future.
>
> Except the Japanese like to buy big gas-guzzling Ford pickup trucks too.
> :-) Plus, CAFE helped there a whole bunch.
>
Oh, yeah.. All what 1,000 of them that drive cars? lol Seriously, 1)
declining population, 2) non-city lands going fallow, and 3) no where
near enough places "to" drive for the high price of gas to matter at
all. Its not like, say, a few million idiots that think they need to
cram 500,000 cars on 1,000 roads every day, in 4-5 cities, in various
corners of a damn continent. lol
>> 2) anti-intellectualism.
>
> Yep.
>
>> The modern US thinks we are #1, while simultaneously thinking that
>> being smart, knowledgeable, logical, or just prone to use a lot of big
>> words, makes you a pariah and untrustworthy.
>
> In many ways, yes. Altho I'm not sure what this has to do with monetary
> policy. :-)
>
A lot really. Dumb and gullible people are happy to buy into anything
that "promises" them something for nothing, and the entire "lending"
economy has been based "purely" on that thinking. Some... some are so
stupid they join so called "prosperity ministries", which preach buy,
buy, buy, and buy more, since a) Jesus will reward the faithful
(apparently the people holding the collection box) with riches, and b)
even if he doesn't, the whole world will end, and you won't need to
worry about losing the $300,000 home you bought on 4 morgages, with 3
credit cards, and all the crap they fill the inside with.
You and me.. we would look at a stereo system and a TV, and decide to
take the TV, on sale, which was "good enough". They... would buy both,
the best ones their credit could get, and then go to church on Sunday to
be told, "Praise the Lord, you will be rewarded for buying it!" I don't
want to even think how many of the morons involved with this crash where
both either CEO or consumers **and** members of that crazy shit.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
> banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
> cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>.
Of course you do. See, for example, Iceland.
> With one single currency you don't get that BS.
That's why it's called the gold standard.
> And... Just to be clear, if all this
> regulation, and taxation, and money based on pure money stuff is so bad,
> why is it **only** the US, and countries filled with corrupt dictators,
> which are currently screwed in health care, cost of living,
> unemployment, etc.?
See Iceland for example.
> How the hell is not having anything you "can" exchange for it, just
> imaginary stuff, which you could "in theory" trade for it, then what the
> heck is the difference from the current form again?
I'm saying you don't actually have to lug the gold around. You just have
to have the money backed by gold you could actually get to if youwant.
> And, if people stop believing in gold, same thing.
Except that people have been believing in gold for like 5000 years or
so. Certainly since before the roman empire.
> Money is *not* gold,
> it has been, and always was, a bit of paper that said, "in theory, this
> will buy X". It doesn't matter if that is gold or rock, as long as
> someone things there is some value to rocks.
Right. That's fine. And that works. And when they stop believing, you're
f'ed. See Iceland, for example. Or Zimbabwe.
> Removing such a stupid standard means the value is
> based on what it really was in the first place, trust that you can spend
> it, and get something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
No. Removing the standard means it's based on trust that someone who
refuses to take your IOU will be shot. There has never been a
successful fiat currency that wasn't based on "you can pay your taxes
with it!"
> A lot really. Dumb and gullible people are happy to buy into anything
> that "promises" them something for nothing,
Including the government, printing money. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Because, you don't have to worry about people "refusing" money at their
> banks, because they don't trust you have the gold, don't like your hair
> cut, or think your too <insert race/religion here>.
Or, alternately, just what do you think a "run on the bank" actually
*is*, even *with* one currency?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Removing such a stupid standard means the value is based on what it
>> really was in the first place, trust that you can spend it, and get
>> something back, including, if you have enough, gold bars.
>
> No. Removing the standard means it's based on trust that someone who
> refuses to take your IOU will be shot. There has never been a
> successful fiat currency that wasn't based on "you can pay your taxes
> with it!"
>
Again, I am not sure what your point is. Someone could use the "gold
standard", then ship all the gold to some other country, where it
basically ceases to exist, and until someone demanded to "see" the gold,
no one would have a clue anything had changed. Such a standard, as I
have tried to point out, is meaningless on its face, since you are still
trusting someone to "honestly" have what they claim is being used to
back it, no matter if its "You can pay your taxes with this slip of
paper.", or, "Someplace there are gold bars that this is valued to some
percentage of. Honest! Cross my heart!" The very idea that they *is* a
real difference between these in terms of how the money itself gets
used, and what ever trust is placed in it, is, I am sorry, but...
delusional.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> and until someone demanded to "see" the gold,
> no one would have a clue anything had changed.
Right. And with some 300 million people in the country, using gold to
transfer value between banks, shipping too much of the gold elsewhere
leads to you getting caught.
(This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal
reserve.)
> Such a standard, as I
> have tried to point out, is meaningless on its face, since you are still
> trusting someone to "honestly" have what they claim is being used to
> back it,
Yes. Except if it's the government doing it, you don't have to trust
them to honestly have what they claim. They can just say "No, we decided
to give away all your gold. Tough crap."
> The very idea that they *is* a
> real difference between these in terms of how the money itself gets
> used, and what ever trust is placed in it, is, I am sorry, but...
> delusional.
So you're happy taking corporate stocks as payment for your salary
instead of cash? The company you work for will pay you in corporate
stocks, but they won't buy them back from you for actual cash. Instead,
they just say "Trust us, the value is actually there." That works for you?
Cause it's the same thing.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
